An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

reply to post by _bigbrain_


bigbrain, your own link to wikipedia just points out the veracity of what I wrote....

N2O4....'dinitrogen tetraoxide' (see, two nitrogen molecules, four oxygen molecules)....

UDMH...'unsymmetrical dimenthylhydrazine'....

I call it 'hydrazine' for short.

These two chemicals, 'N2O4 and UDMH' were the hypergolic compounds I refered to

Sorry you think what I wrote is nonsense, I invite you to go back and read the very source from Wikipedia that you linked in you last post, read it and try to understand it, please.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

To re-cap...the hypergolic engines do not work in an atmosphere. AND, even if they could,

there is no way for the LM to carry enough fuel,

as it was designed, to operate within the Earth's gravity well, cosidering how much 'deeper' it is than the Moon's!!!
...

It was enough not much propellants to test LM on the earth for a little time.

With not much propellants its weight would be light.

N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4) work in an atmosphere very well.

But NASA swaggerers were not able to land LM on the earth. It was unflyable. They never sent LM to the moon but staged moon landing at 20th Century Fox thanks to Kubrick.

and back to kubrick we go

Weedwacker, Ignorant Ape, JRA and soylent green is people may i just express my admiration for the way you have repeatedly answered the same questions over and over in a calm manner without resorting to flaming or childish abuse. Its a credit to this board and a shame more threads cant evolve like this

giving you all stars.... And Bigbrain , i think that your questions have been answered politely, succintly and intelligently and its getting to the point where i think you are trolling

Mods, i know this was off topic, but i thought that the courtesy shown by the above deserved a mention

Edited as i forgot JRA

[edit on 31-3-2008 by expatwhite]

reply to post by expatwhite


I second the appreciation for all the time and effort that has been shown. Stars were not enough, so I went a step further.

big_brain, I agree that your questions have been answered in depth, and completely. While you may not accept those answers, it is the best that we can do.

Further repeating of this endless cycle of explanations that you do not accept must end. Therefore, unless an ORIGINAL, never before asked question, or evidence is brought out, this thread will be closed, and the matter settled.

And big_brain, I will take a dim view of repeating the same questions again. I will consider that a violation of our gentleman's agreement.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Originally posted by expatwhite

...
and back to kubrick we go

...

No, Kubrick has nothing to do with my reasoning.

My reasoning is that NASA swaggerers had to test LM on the earth before sending it on the moon.

LLRVs and LLTVs have nothing to do with LM in the shape, in the structure, in the engine, in the distribution of masses.

Why didn't NASA swaggerers test LM on the earth? Because they were not able to build a rocket that could land vertical going backwards.

This is the truth and you are understanding that I am right.

This is the truth and you are understanding that I am right.

No i do NOT understand you are right. In fact you are completely wrong and your reasoning has been REPEATEDLY refuted in a far more articulate way than i could...

Please read the moderators warning, i would hate to see this great thread closed down simply due to your trolling

And your comment above simply proves to me that that is just what you are doing... You are obviously looking for a bite but no chomps from me im afraid

Originally posted by _bigbrain_

Originally posted by expatwhite

...
and back to kubrick we go

...

No, Kubrick has nothing to do with my reasoning.

My reasoning is that NASA swaggerers had to test LM on the earth before sending it on the moon.

LLRVs and LLTVs have nothing to do with LM in the shape, in the structure, in the engine, in the distribution of masses.

Why didn't NASA swaggerers test LM on the earth? Because they were not able to build a rocket that could land vertical going backwards.

This is the truth and you are understanding that I am right.

By the way, YOU stated that Kubrick was involved in this plot that you think occured, therefore he must be in your reasoning?

NGC, my compliments for your response by the way

Originally posted by NGC2736
...

Further repeating of this endless cycle of explanations that you do not accept must end. Therefore, unless an ORIGINAL, never before asked question, or evidence is brought out, this thread will be closed, and the matter settled.

...

No, I have given a new interpretation of Langley crane, that hoax believers have thought it was the place of fake moon landings.

I have said a new idea: at Langley crane NASA swaggerers would have to test LM and were not able.

If you close the thread, you are not a person living in the land of the free.

This thread can continue till when nobody send posts.

A better idea might be for you to stop posting the SAME things over and over rather than taunting the Moderators to delete a thread and spoil things for others.

Remember, the site Motto is "deny ignorance" . Please please stop this before you spoil it for other board members who find this thread fascinating and some of the information supplied is just stunning. This is my final response to you as the last thing i want is a flame war on this thread, but please, again, just think on.

If you have another point that hasnt already been raised and answered then please post it, im sure it will be sensibly answered and i look forward to reading it.

reply to post by _bigbrain_


Let me be very clear here. I can close a thread when I deem it right and proper to do so. You lack the authority to make those decisions, because you were not asked to take on a thankless job of keeping peace in a verbal war zone.

And trying to shift the argument of the crane does not sound like a new idea to me. Though if your tutors here chose to respond, I will hear their side of it.

But it is not in the best interests of this community to keep going over the same ground endlessly for your amusement. And my ultimate decision has to be with what is best for the community.

Originally posted by NGC2736
...

But it is not in the best interests of this community to keep going over the same ground endlessly for your amusement. And my ultimate decision has to be with what is best for the community.

You can't know what is best for the community, otherwise you are a dictator.

reply to post by expatwhite


Thank you, expatwhite....it is nice to be appreciated!!

Not sure if it was here that I mentioned, there is another website, very well-known, that allows such a free-for-all it makes 'wrestling' look polite!!!

I tried to inject intelligence there, got shouted and cursed at so often, I gave up.

Fortunately, we have ATS, a great place to discuss, and if I get shouted at or cursed at, there are consequences for the 'shouter' or the 'curser'...and this leads to a good community for all.

Sorry if that sounded 'PollyAnnish'...or trite...but it works, and it's important that it works!!!

Best, WW

I see big brain is banned again and the thread is probably about to be closed. Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed. Although Selene's camera lacks the resolution necessary to spot the actual apollo hardware, it was able to detect a larger area of disturbance, either generated by the descent or ascent stage of the lander as it blew away the top layer of lunar dust. So many have asked "why can't selene show us pictures of apollo"? The true answer lies in the spacecraft's limitations and purpose, but it turns out that it can at least provide evidence of apollo.



[edit on 1-4-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Great find, ngchunter!!!

Yup! This thread seems to be stuck in the drain, spinning 'round and 'round....just needs someone to come along and unclog it!!

Sappy metaphor, sorry...I'm dealing with a slow drain in the house....

Best, WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yup! This thread seems to be stuck in the drain, spinning 'round and 'round....just needs someone to come along and unclog it!!

Hey, WW
why have they banned me?

Why don't you defend me?

You haven't yet written a logic reasoning about my question on Langley crane.

You can ban a person that behaves unpolitely.

But you can't ban a person because you are not able to confute his reasonings: this is censorship.

To moderators: you can't say I am repeating the same things. Also in other threads there are a lot of repetitions.

If nobody answers me, I stay silent.

Also those who answer me are repeating the same things.

Why don't you ban them too?

reply to post by Big-Brain


You have a u2u. I was right.

reply to post by Big-Brain


I really shouldn't reply, since I already predict the outcome, but this person cries out for answers!

When very nice people attempt, again and again, to try to instruct and educate, and when the person being focused on refuses to learn, then the people doing the instructing just realize it is hopeless.

I say this from experience...I once had a student assigned to me, a person who wanted to learn how to fly. (See, I was a Flight Instructor then...still am, it nevers goes away, just needs to be re-activated every two years...)

Anyway, this student simply could not understand my instruction. This student could not fly an airplane 'straight and level' even after four or five lessons!! (this student appeared to read and speak English, but I'm not sure we really communicated across cultural differences...just a guess)

This student could not even taxi a Cessna 150!!!....this is most basic, and very easily comprended by anoyone wishing to learn to fly!!!

AN airplane is 'steered' on the ground through the rudder pedals. A car has an accelertor, and a brake. Two pedals....an airplane has two pedals, but they STEER, left and right. The 'brakes' are activated by pushing with your toes, on TOP of the pedals. Well, this student could not grasp the concept, and I ... only time I ever told someone...told this student to please not try to become a pilot.

I have taught a lot of people to fly, from Primary to Instrument to Commercial to ATP, including Mulit-Engine instruction. I even had a student from Japan, who came to the US for his Mulit-Engine rating...his English was poor, we had a translator in the rear seat....but he got his US ME rating! Which he took home, and probably flies for a Japanese Airline right now!!

There is a point where you have to chop it off, I guess. Soem can fly...well, most can fly, but a few simply cannot!!!

sorry it went off-topic, but just want to keep the thread alive...and, I think I made some sense?

WW

bigbrain --

Regarding your question about testing the LEM...this is going to be the best answer you will get from me, so if you ask the same question again, I won't answer...

The LEM was tested in space. It is not designed to operate in Earth's atmosphere and in Earth's gravity -- even hung from the crane it WOULD NOT respond the way it would in space, so testing it at Langley would be practically useless.

Like I said, it was instead tested in space. In the final test, Apollo 10 did all of the maneuvers Apollo 11 would be doing when they landed on the Moon. The only difference was the landing gear did not touch the Moon's surface (they were about 8 miles [13 km] up). However IT DOESN'T MATTER if Apollo 10 touched the surface or not because the LEM would respond EXACTLY THE SAME WAY whether they were 13 km above the surface or 3 meters above the surface. So the Apollo 10 test was adequate enough for the engineers to know that the LEM would work as designed, and the astronauts were trained in simulators how to actually land it.

So the LEM was in fact tested under the same conditions it would be expected to encounter during the Apollo 11 flight. Therefore you have no reason to again ask "it is not logical that the LEM wasn't tested".

[edit on 4/1/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Above all, thank to the Mod. Intrepid
I'm not the only one repeating things in this web site

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

However IT DOESN'T MATTER if Apollo 10 touched the surface or not because the LEM would respond EXACTLY THE SAME WAY whether they were 13 km above the surface or 3 meters above the surface.

...

www.astronautix.com...

The lunar module continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light indicated that the inertial measuring unit really was about to reach its limits and go into gimbal lock. Stafford then took over in manual control, made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control switches. Snoopy finally calmed down.

Stafford and Cernan risked their neck in that sole test of LM in lunar orbit.
After many flights with LLRVs and LLTVs they hazarded their life piloting LM because LM had not ejection seat.

It's not logical that they piloted LLRVs and LLTVs in safe condition and never piloted LM in a safe environment suspended to Langley crane like this disastrous spacecraft:

youtube.com...

It was enough to use stronger cables at Langley crane.

It's not logical that they learnt to fly LLRVs and LLTVs - that are totally fake and unflyable too - and went to the moon without learning to fly the real LM on the earth - light with a little propellants.
In fact LLRVs and LLTVs are totally different from LM.

It's illogical to waste money building several LLRVs and LLTVs when they would be able to build LM with a rocket engine a little more powerful:
The gimbaled rocket engine with the exhaust nozzle facing the ground would support 5/6ths of the LM weight to compensate for the moon's weaker gravitational force. The small rockets would support the remaining 1/6th of the vehicle's weight and provided controlled ascent, descent, and horizontal movements.

My reasoning is logical and very credible.

Another illogical thing: at NASA there was a smart pilot, Stafford, that was able to fly LM Snoopy without computer avoiding its very dangerous gyrations, but NASA swaggerers sent Armstrong to the moon.




[edit on 2-4-2008 by Big-Brain]

reply to post by Big-Brain


Big Brain....your latest YT link just shows an experiment, one that I would assume, provided a lot of good data, before crashing.

See, this is stuff that CONTRIBUTED to how the spcaecraft were ultimately designed!!!!!

I have seen quite a few videos of rockets failing, on launch....because there is a learning curve. This was very well understood BEFORE any humans were put on top of these rockets.

The USSR used dogs, the USA used chimps....guess we had more chimps, and knew how the American public would react if we used dogs, I don't know, wasn't there in the early 1960s...I was wearing diapers then (as were the astronauts)!!!

big brain, if we could not control a rocket, then we could not control any other spacecraft!!!! It is actually more difficult to keep a missile under control than it is to 'soft-land' while keeping it under control. The dynamic forces are very different, ESPECIALLY in a vacuum!!!

Please, please...we have tried and tried to direct you to educational sources, yet you keep coming back with nonsense, so we just cannot educate you....it happens, it distresses me, but it happens...

Best, WW

[edit for spellilng]


[edit on 4/2/0808 by weedwhacker]