Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

Right, however, it still has to build up enough force to counteract the gravity, correct?

Once the propellants are introduced to each other, the reaction begins.

Within a fraction of a second, the chemical reactions are underway, and the result of the propellants mixing, and expanding (which provide the force) are acting. The systems are designed to recognize and confirm that certain valves have opened....the valves associated with the propellants that have to come into contact.

Once THAT verification (valve openings) is received, the circuitry will then blow the explosive bolts that attach the upper stage (the Ascent Stage) of the LM to the lower (Descent Stage).

This all happens in the timespan of less than one second.....the computers monitored it, and every step had to occur, before the next would occur. Or else, the launch would abort, and the countdown reset for the next launch window.

I mean, gee.....this is the case for every launch of every spacecraft ever known.....the timing will vary, and the propellants and circuitry, but the principles are the same in general.

Really....try getting some education on the technical aspects of this, or else stop trying to "argue" about things you just simply do not understand.....

Originally posted by DJW001
No more evasions, please.

No you are wrong about who is evading. NASA evades, so NASA loses credibility. It's quite simple equation.

Here we have NASA evasion of audits.


Here we have NASA showing off the cutting edge of space photography. NASA is technologically incapable of providing anything better than this.


And the highly distinguished NASA General Charles Bolden will be handling the Apollo Keepout Zone activities. Don't get too close or he'll shoot you down. It will look like your satellite had malfunctioned.


It's damned good picture in the Mission Control room. interesting "light phenomenon" on the big screen. I'm not sure if that's Neil or Buzz coming down Eagle. Anybody? Did NASA keep a copy of the video that is being shown on the big screen here?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

No you are wrong about who is evading. NASA evades, so NASA loses credibility. It's quite simple equation

And you, sir, merely change the topic when you're caught out, erm, cheating:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DJW001


Funny you should mention that - I'm still wondering why bought Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt into the thread as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why he considers it a factual document in the first place??

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It's damned good picture in the Mission Control room. interesting "light phenomenon" on the big screen.

Simply the reflection from a flash.... which you would realise if you knew anything about photography.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DJW001

 

Funny you should mention that - I'm still wondering why bought Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt into the thread as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why he considers it a factual document in the first place??

Im waiting for you to explain what part(s) of the document is not factual and
how it relates to what I used from the document.
You seem to have evaded these initial questions for several pages now.

Because Im not about to explain something if you have reading comprehension issues.
It would be a waste of time.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

 

Right, however, it still has to build up enough force to counteract the gravity, correct?

Once the propellants are introduced to each other, the reaction begins.

Within a fraction of a second, the chemical reactions are underway, and the result of the propellants mixing, and expanding (which provide the force) are acting. The systems are designed to recognize and confirm that certain valves have opened....the valves associated with the propellants that have to come into contact.

Once THAT verification (valve openings) is received, the circuitry will then blow the explosive bolts that attach the upper stage (the Ascent Stage) of the LM to the lower (Descent Stage).

This all happens in the timespan of less than one second.....

Yes... and? How does this relate to what is being asked?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It's damned good picture in the Mission Control room. interesting "light phenomenon" on the big screen.

Simply the reflection from a flash.... which you would realise if you knew anything about photography.

That's one big flash and I didn't think they used flashes on the moon.
It was full daylight ya know.

edit: It looks like the sun to me but the image isn't clear enough to say with certainty..

Originally posted by backinblack
That's one big flash and I didn't think they used flashes on the moon.

What makes you think the flash used was on the moon? You really have no idea at all, do you!

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by backinblack
That's one big flash and I didn't think they used flashes on the moon.

What makes you think the flash used was on the moon? You really have no idea at all, do you!

Ohh, you're a hoax believer...

Didn't realize,sorry.....

Originally posted by backinblack
Ohh, you're a hoax believer...

Didn't realize,sorry.....

you have no understanding of what happens when you take a flash picture of a video screen....

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by backinblack
Ohh, you're a hoax believer...

Didn't realize,sorry.....

you have no understanding of what happens when you take a flash picture of a video screen....

Umm, the source of the flash appears to be behind the lander..

IMO that rules out a flash in front of the screen..

If that light source was on the set or moon, whatever you believe it wouldn't look anything like that. It would blow out big time. Obvious reflection is obvious.

Edit: Oh and where you get that behind the lander idea? It's right on the freaking ladder. On top of that.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DJW001

 

Funny you should mention that - I'm still wondering why bought Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt into the thread as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why he considers it a factual document in the first place??

Im waiting for you to explain what part(s) of the document is not factual and
how it relates to what I used from the document.
You seem to have evaded these initial questions for several pages now.

Because I asked first - it is impolite to answer a question with a question, and your answers do not need me to answer you.

You used the document as if it were factual and relevant - so it is up to you to show why that is the case.

Because Im not about to explain something if you have reading comprehension issues.
It would be a waste of time.

It would also b a waste of time explaining how a piece of fiction is factual and relevant - but also embarrassing for you.

See I understand your question - it is an attempt for you do evade having to justify your evidence.

It is what you always do - you cannot justify something you consider "evidence", so you try to change the topic rather than answer the question.

I wasn't expecting anything else - just highlighting it for entertainment purposes

Originally posted by FoosM
How do you explain debris and dust flying all over the place in the vacuum of space?

It's due to the Ascent Propulsion System, obviously.

Dust and debris flying all over the place is not the same as objects catching fire like we see occurring with the rings in the staging process

Of course it's not the same. Completely different rockets in a completely different situation.

The S-II had five J-2 engines that put out over 1,000,000 lbf of thrust using LOX/LH2 for fuel. Compare that to the APS which had one engine that put out 3,500 lbf of thrust with Aerozine 50 / nitrogen tetroxide for fuel.

That and the S-II was still in Earth's upper atmosphere when the first stage was jettisoned. That might explain why the interstage caught fire. Where as on the Moon there isn't atmosphere that can allow a fire to burn.

So when we see this video,
and we see the flag fluttering.
I would like to know what exactly is causing that?
And why does the flag not catch flame, and why does the flag not fly away?

The APS is causing that. There is no oxygen to allow a flame to burn. It seems like not enough force was applied to it to knock it over completely. Perhaps it wasn't close enough or the pole was firmly embedded into the ground. It's believed that the flag on Apollo 11 was knocked over, however.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by backinblack
Ohh, you're a hoax believer...

Didn't realize,sorry.....

you have no understanding of what happens when you take a flash picture of a video screen....

Umm, the source of the flash appears to be behind the lander..

IMO that rules out a flash in front of the screen..

It was covered before in this thread.
Its Neil Armstrong.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
How do you explain debris and dust flying all over the place in the vacuum of space?

It's due to the Ascent Propulsion System, obviously.

So you would maintain that the exhaust from the APS is making contact with the fabric of the flag, making it flutter, correct? So what would that exhaust temperature be?

Lets not forget, why didnt the flag get ripped apart from being sandblasted?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DJW001

 

Funny you should mention that - I'm still wondering why bought Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt into the thread as some sort of evidence of a moon hoax, or why he considers it a factual document in the first place??

Im waiting for you to explain what part(s) of the document is not factual and
how it relates to what I used from the document.
You seem to have evaded these initial questions for several pages now.

Because I asked first - it is impolite to answer a question with a question, and your answers do not need me to answer you.

Its impolite to ask questions not related to the post. Basically, from your question, I get the impression you either didnt understand my post, or you really didnt read it.

So explain what your issue is with the document in relation to my post, if you want to engage in a meaningful debate.

reply to post by FoosM

Lets not forget, why didnt the flag get ripped apart from being sandblasted?

Huh? Why would it? Where is this "sand" to "blast" it?? Look carefully (and for cripe's sake, think!) at the design of the LM....and the Ascent Stage.

Pay note, particularly, of the Ascent engine location.

So again.....where is this "sand" coming from, in order to "blast" the flag???

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

 

Lets not forget, why didnt the flag get ripped apart from being sandblasted?

Huh? Why would it? Where is this "sand" to "blast" it?? Look carefully (and for cripe's sake, think!) at the design of the LM....and the Ascent Stage.

Pay note, particularly, of the Ascent engine location.

So again.....where is this "sand" coming from, in order to "blast" the flag???

If you are talking about Apollo 11 Neil said that he could see his footprints and the treads of his boots in the "fine, sandy particles".