Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: turbonium1

I wrote a long reply to your post, but the 3G dropped and I lost it. In any case, others have made the points I did.

In short, the LRO was no more launched to image the Apollo sites than QuickBird 2 was launched to image my house. The fact that we can see them is just a cool "I can see my house from here" moment rather than any great scientific goal. The LRO was launched to make a high res map of the moon and it has done that job brilliantly. Anyone can see its work at a cost to them of precisely zip. target.lroc.asu.edu...


In even shorter: NASA doesn't design its missions to suit a dwindling band of scientific illiterates.

originally posted by: choos

possible yes, but what about the dust?? also this means we can rule out the theory that it was filmed in some desert.. for obvious reasons..

nothing?? what about the dust??

the dust falls at lunar gravity which indicates that each speck of dust is actually attached to a string or wire..

No, you cannot measure the speed of the dust. It is not one object, it is thousands of micro-sized objects, sprayed over an area.

You keep trying this silly argument, over and over,

originally posted by: choos

and you know this how??? have you seen what a jump will look like on the lunar surface?? or are you just guessing??

The Vomit Comet shows true 1/6g...

www.sciencechannel.com...

They aren't even trying to jump high, and look what happens.

Their heads would hit the ceiling if they tried a real jump!

They are in true 1/6g . They appear to be almost floating, like in 0g. It is not at all like the Apollo astronauts.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The Vomit Comet shows true 1/6g...

www.sciencechannel.com...

They aren't even trying to jump high, and look what happens.

Their heads would hit the ceiling if they tried a real jump!

They are in true 1/6g . They appear to be almost floating, like in 0g. It is not at all like the Apollo astronauts.

Those people are wearing light everyday clothing! An EVA suit as worn by Apollo astronauts weighs 200lb on Earth. It has considerably more mass than I do! How high could you jump with a 200lb man on your back, even in lunar gravity?

What is it with hoax believers and their unerring ability to miss the bleeding obvious?

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, you cannot measure the speed of the dust. It is not one object, it is thousands of micro-sized objects, sprayed over an area.

You keep trying this silly argument, over and over,

ummm.. yes you can.. basically what you are displaying here is denial

i have estimated the gravity on the dust once.. and i have shown two other video from youtube of two other people that have also done so.. so how is it that atleast 3 people can do so, but to you its impossible??

its called estimating..

you get the start point and an end point and you find the time it takes to get from those points.. averaging and estimation works well..

can you finally, finally explain the dust now??

mind you in the clip below the dust takes 1.24 seconds to reach its apex.. according to your faulty theory if this is really 1.5x slowed earth footage the dust should have reached its apex in 0.76seconds or about 0.5seconds/12 frames.. which is about a 60% error.. if simpletons average people like me can estimate it, then so can respectable scientists.. how do they miss an error as large as 60%??



are you genuinely trying to tell me you cant see where the dust reaches its apex here??

The Vomit Comet shows true 1/6g...

www.sciencechannel.com...

They aren't even trying to jump high, and look what happens.

Their heads would hit the ceiling if they tried a real jump!

They are in true 1/6g . They appear to be almost floating, like in 0g. It is not at all like the Apollo astronauts.

so what you are comparing here is a man in plain clothes weghing 1 or 2 kg worth of clothing jumping with full mobility with an astronaut in a fully pressurized suit weighing about 91kg (does this include consumables i wonder?)

nice comparison there buddy.

a reply to: ppk55

No, we never went to the moon, they faked it all in a studio.

We never sent rovers to mars or probes out past Jupiter.

In fact, we never came down out of the trees or left Africa.

The Internet also doesn't exist.

America is a lie.

The Earth is flat.

a reply to: turbonium1

No, you cannot measure the speed of the dust. It is not one object, it is thousands of micro-sized objects, sprayed over an area.

But if the first dust particle reaches point X at time A, and point Y at time B, then you can say what the average speed of the dust plume is. It doesn't matter if it is not the exact same speck of dust, just like you can measure the flow rate of a river without tracking every water molecule, or measure wind speed without knowing where each air molecule is.

Have you ever wondered why there's always an answer to your questions, but you never have an answer to ours?

Such as, has your buddy Jarrah finished his 48 litres of milk yet? I'd hate to see it go to waste.

I have to say a massive well done to Rob48 and Onebigmonkey in particular in this thread for being incredibly patient in trying to educate the un-educatable.There are lots of others of course but these two guys shine out like a bight shiney thing in the last few weeks.

Here's something I'm not sure has been covered here or not.I first knew about the Apollo missions when I was ten years old and on holiday down in the West country.We'd sat down for a meal (can't remember if it was breakfast,lunch or evening meal) and there was radio on in the room across the corridor from where we were eating.It was live coverage of Apollo 11 and the first landing on the moon in 1969.Up until this time I had no interest in anything remotely other wordly until I heard Neil Armstrong's legendary speech "That's one small step etc etc...." "What's that about dad?" I asked.He explained and I was gobsmacked that a man from our planet was actually walking on that bright round thing I see in the sky on clear nights.This had me hooked and I got and kept for a lot of years afterwards all the magazine and newspaper moon landing supplements,books and any other reading material I could get my hands on.I also made all of the large scale Airfix models of the Saturn 5 and lunar landing module etc,which sadly ended up falling into an unspaceworthy state of repair.

One thing I do remember (I think) was that their was always journalists of some kind allowed to be in mission control at all times,and some of the later missions even had uninterrupted radio and/or TV coverage in some shape or form until we started to lose interest from about 15 onwards.Then it just dwindled down to "just another American moon landing story".The point I'm trying to make if I am right about the permanent journalistic presence in the control room,is they would never have the chance to cover anything up if people from outside NASA were experiencing live exactly what was happening a quarter of a million miles away? The people of the world with access to broadcast TV saw and heard exactly what the guys in mission control were seeing and hearing with just the 2 second or so delay making it SEEM not quite live.

originally posted by: Rob48

Another mystery: why at 37:08 does Jarrah say "23.78 litres" when the calculations on screen (which are presented with no explanation, and seemingly start off by adding a random number to the 1600BTU figure!) conclude with a figure of 14.576kg,or 32lb? One kilogram of water is 1 litre.

Was 14.576 litres not big enough for Jarrah, so he added another 63% for luck? Does he think that when confronted with a wall of numbers, people will just glaze over and not pay attention to what they say?

Maybe if he spent more time with his calculator and less time buying gallons of milk, he might have spotted his error!

Just going back to this issue. Jarrah White has now proved links to René's original calculations, and the mystery is solved. And it's a corker, for anyone who knows thermodynamics 101.

To start off with, René is taking the total 1600 BTU/hr design load (which INCLUDES metabolic rate, solar gain and electrical gain), and then ADDS in the solar gain (using inflated figures, but that's by the by) and electrical gain on top.

And then, here comes the breathtakingly dumb part... he assumes 40% efficiency in the evaporation process!



If you don't see how stupid this is, let me explain: the heat of sublimation of water is a fundamental physical property. It is fixed by physics, in the same way as the density, standard boiling point, freezing point and so on are. You cannot alter it.

If you sublimate 1kg of water under standard conditions, you WILL require 2.834 megajoules of energy. You cannot get around that fact.

Not only that, but his idea of efficiency is totally backwards. If you could somehow magically sublimate 60% MORE water using the same energy, then that would not be 40% efficiency, it would be 160% efficiency. And you cannot get more than 100% efficient!

It is like claiming that your kettle is only 40% efficient because it can boil water by only heating it to 40 degrees Celsius.

I thought I had read some dumb nonsense in my life but this? He put his name to this rubbish in a published book! It would send any school physics student to the dunce's corner.

Whew, sorry about the rant, but this is priceless.

Here are the links to the full idiocy of Ralph's maths. Read it and weep.

www.moonfaker.com...
www.moonfaker.com...
www.moonfaker.com...




EDIT TO ADD:

I posted this explanation on Jarrah's video, and surprise surprise he has deleted the entire thread, including the link to René's calculations. A thread which HE STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. He didn't like the replies exposing his BS, so he is just pretending they never existed.

Jarrah's defenders, please tell me: is that the action of a man who is honest but mistaken, or a man who is deliberately lying?


FURTHER EDIT TO ADD:
It appears I am not imagining things. Quoth Jarrah:

Yet another troll blocked for falsely calling me "deceptive" and trolling Ralph Rene. A reminder to all: any troll who I find here calling me or my deceased friends "deliberately deceptive" without a shred of evidence will be blocked and reported to Youtube for harassment without warning

Apparently correcting basic mathematical errors is now considered "trolling" in Jarrah land. And basic thermodynamics does not constitute "a shred of evidence". (It turns out he has not deleted the thread, I just couldn't read it because he had blocked me!)

Take a look:
BEFORE...


and AFTER...


Order is restored, the truth is not allowed to pass before the eyes of the True Believers, and Jarrah gets back to finishing his 48 litres of milk.

Why does anyone continue to believe this utter fraud?

So as not to derail this thread too much, I have started a new thread on Jarrah's revisionist tendencies in the Conspiracy Theorists forum, here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any of his legion who wish to defend his actions, please do it over there.

originally posted by: Rob48

To start off with, René is taking the total 1600 BTU/hr design load (which INCLUDES metabolic rate, solar gain and electrical gain), and then ADDS in the solar gain (using inflated figures, but that's by the by) and electrical gain on top.

even before that he begins with the wrong number.. some reason 1600BTU x 0.2928watts/BTU = 368watts according to Ralph Rene and Jarrah White..

perplexing..

originally posted by: choos

even before that he begins with the wrong number.. some reason 1600BTU x 0.2928watts/BTU = 368watts according to Ralph Rene and Jarrah White..

perplexing..

Ha, good spot! I didn't think even Ralph could fumble a simple multiplication! He missed a trick there - he would have ended up with an even bigger volume of water if he'd got that conversion correct.

It's just one colossal screw-up after another with these guys.

a reply to: turbonium1

YOU really don't have a clue!!!!

A reduced gravity aircraft is a type of fixed-wing aircraft that provides brief near-weightless environments for training astronauts, conducting research and making gravity-free movie shots.

Here is a graphic of the gravity at certain parts of the flight.

zero g flight trajectory

a reply to: Rob48

That long post of mine towards the top of this page was aimed partly at you,I'd be interested to hear your response to the last paragraph please.It really does seem like I'm being ignored a lot of the time as at least half of my posts on here aimed at specific people go unanswered.It does seem to be the trend on here now that if you say something really controversial (like they didn't go back to the moon after # 17 because they had an argument with the Clangers who quite rightly see it as home),it will get a very long and carefully worded response.If however you have a small but relevant and interesting (to the poster) point to add to the topic,a lot of the time it just disappears from sight and never gets any sort of response.

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: Rob48

That long post of mine towards the top of this page was aimed partly at you,I'd be interested to hear your response to the last paragraph please.

Sorry, I did mean to respond to you but got sidetracked with Jarrah. You are quite right that journalists and news media were right there in Mission Control, with the Public Affairs Officer constantly providing extra information to explain all the incoming pictures and voice transmissions. They were watching as it happened. If anything untoward was going on, they would have seen.

I have to go out now but I leave you with this obituary of one of those journalists.... the only one who was still there when Apollo 13 made it's famous "Houston, we've had a problem" call. What a scoop www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: Rob48
Ok thanks for the reply.My point was that there were always journalists present for the whole mission from launch to splashdown,and at no time were they asked to leave for reasons that were never fully explained?

a reply to: Imagewerx

I don't know if it is true that they were always there, at least not for all missions. That obituary I linked says that Turnill was the "last journalist still present" on the night of the Apollo 13 mayday, as the rest had gone home! Presumably of their own accord. I am pretty sure that for Apollo 11 there would have been hordes of press there round the clock; maybe by A13 it was already becoming a bit old hat?

I will do some digging and see what I can find.

a reply to: Rob48
Even if the jounalists weren't always present in mission control,wasn't there also a permanent live feed for at least one whole mission?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please explain: are you claiming that LADEE was not actually orbiting the Moon or what?

Crashing it on the far-side is a red flag. Is it another case of a missing module?

It's highly unlikely that the big brains over in the Pentagon are going to let the module crash itself with all the nice laser weapons on it. I have no doubt that one of the agencies has it operating in stealth mode. NO DOUBT. CIA black budgets pay for, and they are still protecting 42 years after, Nixon's Apollo with Keep Out Zones and LRO.

Any rational person would ask NASA: you spent all this money just getting the LADEE to the moon why did you plan it to run out of fuel so quickly?

And why was it planned to "crash" on the far-side where no earthly instruments could verify it?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Stop trying to read conspiracy into everything, SJ. It had completed its mission, they couldn't bring it back to Earth, it couldn't stay in Lunar orbit, so by a process of elimination...


However if you do want to talk conspiracies, what do you make of Jarrah's conspiracy to silence those who point out his fundamental errors? Now that is fishy.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please explain: are you claiming that LADEE was not actually orbiting the Moon or what?

Crashing it on the far-side is a red flag. Is it another case of a missing module?

It's highly unlikely that the big brains over in the Pentagon are going to let the module crash itself with all the nice laser weapons on it. I have no doubt that one of the agencies has it operating in stealth mode. NO DOUBT. CIA black budgets pay for, and they are still protecting 42 years after, Nixon's Apollo with Keep Out Zones and LRO.

Any rational person would ask NASA: you spent all this money just getting the LADEE to the moon why did you plan it to run out of fuel so quickly?

And why was it planned to "crash" on the far-side where no earthly instruments could verify it?

Wow and the scary part is you think people are going to take you seriously. Let me ask a question was this laser meant to kill targets on earth? Since the laser was a communication device pointed at earth.Was this killer laser targeting Nixon instead of communicating with ground controllers? Man take off the tin foil hat i think its killing brain cells.