@Tweekerhead Wrong guess ol pal, I have conducted more research on the topic than you can poke a stick at, enjoy your dream, it's but a deluded one, made from pure moist hot Disney Bullshit.
@occhamite Invoking the name is necessary when one forgets about the foundations of NASA, by mentioning it infacr does the opposite it reveals ones true knowledge of the sinister NASA we should know.
@occhamite Funny how you discount the "nazi" thing so quickly, an obvious embarrassment one needs to try and forget quickly yeh?, but no it lingers within the deep roots of NASAs original foundations, a flimsy foundation indeed. no lies on my visit either, horrendous.
@NASAvsPETE1 Having your reading comprehension problems again? I most assuredly do not "discount the "nazi" thing". What I do, most assuredly, discount is obtuse and disingenuous people who make pathetic attempts to conceal their lack of knowledge by invoking the name.
@occhamite Yes interesting you want to "abolish free speech " no different to a nazi regime is it really ? liars and murders pretty much sums up the NASA fairy tale of Apollo, you must be proud to be apart of the very regime that murdered millions of Jews yeh? Happy Xmas :/
@NASAvsPETE1@NASAvsPETE1 'Yes interesting you want to "abolish free speech " ' I never said any such thing and you know it. OBVIOUSLY the line "That post is such a dense congestion of utter nonsense... one almost begins to yearn for the abolition of free speech." is in no way a call for it. If in some (I PRAY!) hypothetical world everyone abused the right the way you do, that might be another matter. THEN there might be no alternative.
@occhamite Well it's obvious you seem to avoid facts or credible evidence yourself, believe your hog wash all you like a man never stepped on the moon.
@NASAvsPETE1 I avoid nothing. Why don't you try giving us some verifiable facts, and you will then see whether or not they are dealt with. "Go ahead, make my day". Liar.
@occhamite hey Occh, ever been to Auschwitz?, I went last year when I visited Poland, what an amazing revelation, I actually stood inside a gas chamber, I could almost feel the souls reaching out for me, the fathers, mothers & children that died with chlorine/phosgene gas inhalation, yeh they were shouting from the walls, maybe you should visit sometime to get a real feel of what it was like to see your very own family die before your OWN eyes, inspiring stuff to say the most... no less.
@NASAvsPETE1 "hey Occh, ever been to Auschwitz?" Oh sure, you were there. On the other hand, SOMETHING you say at some point in time will likely have a grain if truth in it... maybe you were there after all... it sounds like your idea a vacation resort. (And btw, YOU should visit Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng, as I DID)
@rawmonkno1 It's a know fact that russian intelligence worked very closely with the united states, a known fact also that both were going to fake the missions portrayed through their own propaganda, the USSR never wanted to send a human in the first place, they didn't have the pressure of a presidents promise, the space race reallly was only created by one man, USSR had nothing to prove.
@NASAvsPETE1 "It's a know fact ..." Facts don't seem to be your forte. That post is such a dense congestion of utter nonsense... one almost begins to yearn for the abolition of free speech. I don't remember seeing anyone post so often, for so long, and mange to remain so completely devoid of fact. True to form, you simply make-up whatever you need as you go. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to back-up those absurd claims is never offered - it's almost as if... there isn't any!
what most people don't understand with the Russian missions, is the fact that they did send a monkey, Zond 6 which many thought had failed because of a "failed" re entry that apparently "skipped" this wasn't the real case at all, they had a dead monkey on board that was killed half way during its mission because of radiation. The USSR never wanted to declare this the case because of their agreement with United States intelligence.
"Zond 6 used a relatively uncommon technique called "skip reentry" ... A few hours before reentry, a faulty O-ring rubber gasket caused the cabin to depressurise, killing all biologicals aboard."
A State Commission investigating the crash later found that the coronal discharge effect which caused the parachute to jettison would only occur at the 25 mm capsule pressure. If the capsule had been completely depressurised to a high vacuum, the accident would not have occurred.
Jarrah on your final word that "apollo 15 " is a fake, we now have more than enough evidence to prove it is... all evidence was thrown... yet no debunk. here endeth the lesson, well done & congrats!!!
@GlowWorm1962 "Rik Mayall", I gather was from the original "young ones", & if that's the case (for your "insightful" comparision) that would be considered a compliment to Jarrah as they were "Nuevo" & "Riskay" for their era, I enjoyed this program thoroughly, as for physical attributes? Naahh, JW has more leader qualities.
@NASAvsPETE1 Come here and have a discussion with me on the so called prohibitive aspects of the Moon landings then, we'll who's got the education or 'shit' as you call it.
So what does music got to do with flying to the Moon, other than such as Rammstein.....you are whining about scientist ? science know it happened, my ass.
@kennjohnsen "Rammstein" as you know, sings the truth "Amerika", a beautiful piece, visuals & sound, they cut to the knuckle bone on Apollo... "weeeeeee all live in america america its wondebar"
@stalkervision It figures it would never occur to YOU, having seen only the losing end of it, that it's infinitely better to be making fertilizer than it is to be made INTO fertilizer. Come back if you can ever come up with something intelligent to say, and (for all the good it will do) leave you racial bigotry at the door.
Let's start with orbital mechanics, shall we? How does a space vehicle catches up with another vehicle in orbit? What primary elements are needed? Tell us.
I hope that you have other sources than Apollo, otherwise you'll have some misconceptions.
The vehicle which is closer to the moon, if it has the same speed relatively to the moon, will have a little higher angular speed; the vehicle which must reach the orbit of the vehicle it must dock to turns according to an elliptical trajectory to get closer to the other vehicle.
Normally, the first vehicle uses the hohmann transfer so get way from the moon, so it only has to momentary fire its engine when going from one arc of ellipse to the next one, when it must acquire a little more horizontal speed to engage on the next arc of ellipse; most time the engine is shut off.
The LM must arrive on the orbit of the CM a little ahead of it; after it has made a flipover, it very slightly reduces its speed to allow the CM to join it, and makes a slight compensation with the RCS to remain on the orbit of the CM.
The docking is a delicate maneuver and requires a high precision.
You probably have read many things in the documentation of Apollo, but many things are just stupidities and unphysical.
In the documentation, they say that the astronaut uses one star moreover the moon gravity to initialize the guidance inertial platform, but it's wrong, because two stars are needed moreover the moon gravity, because the LM flies in a 3D system.
P52 determined the orientation of the universe around the space craft. Apollo's sextant was pointed towards a specified star.Once it was aligned, P52 was told that and the sextant was aimed at a second star for mark #2. From its internal table the computer then knew what the angle between the two stars would be.
I tell you that, in the documentation of Apollo, before departing from the moon, they say that the astronaut used only ONE star moreover the moon gravity to initialize the inertial platform.
You're a nice amateur Hunchbacked, but don't challenge me on this.
Did you know that many amateur astronomers use the very basics of P52 for computer programs used with their backyard telescope for alignment? Pick two stars and my computer tells me the orientation of the universe around my home. Subsequently I can aim at any desired celestial body.
Well Von Braun was A former member of the Nazi party, commissioned Sturmbannführer of the paramilitary SS and decorated Nazi war hero,then he worked for NASA and the Apollo missions. Hmm so they kind of we're liars and murderers after all?
@occhamite The N1 was a mere shell with a bomb inside it, designed to save the astronauts life, if it were to really work they would have reached the moon years before. Again their own focus was on unmanned probes, as they knew the unite states would fake it, so too they should as well, but I'm an easier manner, they lacked the film brilliance of Kubrick, MGM and the Disney show package.
@occhamite How quickly you forget the integral need for propaganda on both sides, founded with great ambiguity and paradox, both sides required stability, both worked together to get it.
@NASAvsPETE1 Just as all Apollo defenders must believe in everything the government tells them, you most also believe as Chev that rockets have no thrust in the vacuum of space and there should've been an exhaust plume on the Moon during the landings.
@moonhoaxlunatic1 No it isn't Dutchy pan. It is alive and very well and certainly is not conspiracy theory. Theory is speculation, the ApoNNo hoax is very much fact. Apollogists are so frightened of having their delusion ruined they'll cite anything form the Nosa Handbook of Bullshit to keep the dream alive. Try this:
When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Continue with the rubbish you put out it makes for interesting reading, but true to form of typical apollogists you evade the question. So I shall repeat it. In fact there are two, as follows:
1) Prove irrefutably that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible. This way the Nosanauts could actually reach the moon set.....
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
Give them a little thought then get back to me. Looking forward.
If YOU know the radiation would have been lethal to astronauts on a Moon mission, then stop wasting your time here and publish your paper for a real peer review. Then become famous and make Jarrah jealous as hell.
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Answer the fucking questions. Two really simple posers that even an amateur troll, you, can get their braincell around.
Need a reminder? OK:
1) Prove rocket propulsion can work in outer space ( where there is nothing!! ).
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
A few of your fellow shills are really struggling with these, perhaps you should consult one another and form a thick wank, I'm sorry I mean think tank.
FYI; you are not blocked Chef. You continue to make such incredibly stupid arguments, no refutation is needed. So much less work to do, with you doing it for me.
@occhamite You didn't read my post, the N1 failed on purpose from the beginning, think, why would they only send unmanned probes and do it with perfection? , many more than the united states, it's obvious their development of rocketry wasn't an issue.
@NASAvsPETE1 YOU didn't read your post. But then what would be the necessity, when you only need make it up as you go.... So now N1 was DELIBERATELY faked! The backward USSR spends billions they don't have to deliberately fake a TOP SECRET project!
Let me save you some trouble: I'll make your next post for you: N1 was a secretly real fake. The faking was faked so it would be more convincing to nobody. It had to be real, but only so it would be a CONVINCING fake.
@NASAvsPETE1 "yes indeed, I think you will find a 26 page PDF.." Utter hogwash as always.
freerepublic. com/focus/f-news/1054183/posts . I suppose your next step will be to claim that a "26 page PDF" occupies 2,900 cu. ft. of computer memory. And no doubt it does... on the computer YOU could come up with...
@occhamite The Russians never "failed", they brought their own samples back on unmanned missions. To them this was no doubt a win, exploration of the moon without killing a man in deep space from flares, and van Allen, remember on Apollo 8 they stated "where going anyway", as of anyone would put their lives on the line in an absurd manner, I ask you if you knew now about the effects of deep space radiation would you go? I think not.
@NASAvsPETE1 "The Russians never "failed"...." Did you read my last post? N1... try to remember that name, it's easy: "N", and then a "1".
And all Luna ever brought back was ~325 grams of blindly gathered dust & pebbles, In contrast to the ~860 lb of CAREFULLY CHOSEN Apollo samples. Radiation? You think wrong, as you always do. Nobody who ACTUALLY knows anything about it would try to claim Apollo crews were exposed to any dangerous radiation. NO? NAME ONE. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Also, this can't be stressed enough: why would NASA photoshop images with the wrong color and brightness? These are just a few of the glaring flaws in Jarrah's attempt to disprove the non-disprovable.
The other thing, is that you make a disingenuous remark about the halo and the crater: the whole surface of the moon is covered in craters. The disturbance of surface soil and dust is still there. The halo is not going to be a perfectly circular shape; not anywhere near a crater; and leave a totally different color than the material that covers the surface of the moon. THAT would be evidence of fakery. Nice job NOT disproving ANYTHING!
In both images of the landing site, you can clearly see a lighter side facing the sun on the LM and you can see that there is a shadow on the far side, if you look closely at the photos at 1:56 and again at 2:02. Shadowing on the far side is all one would need if trying to ascertain authenticity of a sunlit object in a photo of the lunar surface. The objects in the image meet this requirement. What did you expect, that the LM would put on a dazzling light show? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
@stalkervision (2of2) And yes, Alexiey Leonov(the man who calls Apollo doubters(like you) "глупые люди" or "stupid people")along with the rest of the cosmonaut corps DID lobby the Politbureau for a manned circumlunar Zond in time to beat Apollo 8. But Zond was not yet reliable enough to be "man-rated" and the last thing the Leadership wanted was another "Soyuz 1" P.R. debacle
OBVIOUSLY, Leonov & co. thought the trip safe, even BEFORE all the data was in. Why do you make my case?
@Tweekerhead Come on cunt and prove to me, to everyone, that rockets can actually operate in a vacuum. Just don't come back with that old chestnut where the thrust acts on the rocket itself. That's bullshit and you know it. By the way,
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
@Tweekerhead Like ALL you want. The ball's in your court here sonny so please attempt an answer at the two questions.......
1) Can you prove how and why rocket thrust in a vacuum is possible remembering my previous criteria.
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
To maintain your reputation I think you ought to come back with a very good reply. Don't get too cocky, your reputation as a prized troll is on the line here.
Ok, There's 14.7psi atmospheric pressure at sea level, when the SaturnV lifts off it blows out the air beneath it and is riding on a expanse of very hot gases, something has to give.
The 14.7psi doesn't matter any more, the Saturn V isn't held up or lifted by the atmosphere.
It's the expanse of hot gases underneath that lift a 6mill. lb. rocket.
.
Same as in the vacuum of space. When the volatile gases are mixed in the throat of the rocket engine....
@Tweekerhead Well here is the thing. That doesnt make sense, because the throat and bell of the engine is exposed continuously to the vacuum. Any air in their would keep escaping due to the vacuum. Its like blowing air into a vacuum cleaner. Depending on the strength of the vacuum, the air gets sucked out faster and stronger than its being blown out.
@FoosMasoos No. The combustion chamber is pushing exhaust out faster than it can be 'sucked out'. Don't get sucked into thinking you have it all figured out because of your apparently infallible logic. Rockets work in space, we can see this, plenty of examples.
Look up the Hayabusa probe. It slowed, matched velocities with a comet, then accelerated away again. There's no way to do this without rockets.
@FoosMasoos So you're saying that the only thing keeping the Saturn V aloft when launched is the surrounding air underneath ? MMmm Pretty strong air.
.
Tell ya' what, you guys have it your way.....stay in the dark.
@Tweekerhead I don't give a shit about 14.7psi and all that nonsense. You are so profoundly stupid that you've dived into the bucket that contains your ignorance. That's right dipshill there is no friction in space......
The gases expand into what exactly? NOTHING. FUCK ALL. ZILCH. ZIPPO.
I said prove it not talk about it.
But don't be naughty to try to evade the other question:
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
@Tweekerhead You have explained nothing because you do not know how to, but just to continue annoying you my questions to refresh your braincell are thus:
1) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION IN OUTER SPACE IS POSSIBLE. Trawl the depths of your vacuous head all you want. You cannot answer the question properly.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN? I don't mean those pathetic amateur actors that Nosa tried to pass off as real.
@Chev4206 No flunky I explained it so a mentally handicapped individual like you could understand. I just didn't make simple enough or you just need to go back and read it slower.
According to you, the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure keeps the Saturn V aloft.
Weird assumption, go back and read, I don't have the time to teach handicapped, stubborn, conceited morons. good luck flunky
@Tweekerhead ONCE AGAIN FOLKS AN APOLLOGIST SHILL IS MAKING UP STUFF TO MAKE ITSELF LOOK BONA FIDE. I have never ever mentioned Saturn V and you true to course have explained nothing. Littering your posts with nasty comments undermines you further, so please continue. In the meantime.....
1) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION IN OUTER SPACE IS POSSIBLE.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Answer in any order you're comfortable with 1 then 2 or 2 then 1.
@stalkervision I wonder what you think your airing of your racial bigotry will get you. By the way folks, I'm not Thai - just plain old native-born wasp. I've known a few Thais though, any of whom I'd prefer to present company, I might add.
@stalkervision What does it matter of Occ' is Thai' or not, he knows volumes more than you do Hassbald'.
How come Jarrah won't come out of his hole and have a discussion with any Apollo-believers?
Answer: because Jarrah doesn't know squat about the environment of space. Why else would he call his video series"Radioactive Anomaly" when referring to the Van Allen belts. There's a difference between radioactive & radiation, but he doesn't know that.
@stalkervision "then why does jarrah have..." Because jarrah did the lousy job researching the issue he always does. I'll supply the name for you, since you can't: SIR BERNARD LOVELL visited the USSR in mid-1963. Now (if you'd get yourself a caldendar, you might be able to follow the rest of this), The instrumented Zond flights, occurred in 1968 & 9(notice the "8" & "9"where the "3" was when I referred to Lovell's trip - that means they happened 5 & 6 years LATER) ... (cont'd)
Yes, I did see that awhile ago. And I recall no shuttle went higher than 600km. And even at that low height, the astronauts where experiencing radiation passing through their skull, flashing in the back of their eye...
I guess the real question is, if you put monkey in a satellite at 1000 miles how much of its skin will be removed to the bone in the first 5 minutes ? I'd say quite a significant amount with a nasty flare and van Allen.
@NASAvsPETE1 If you put a monkey 1000 miles high, his bodily fluids will boil away in the vacuum of space, but he'll die without oxygen before that happens.
If you think a body will fry in the VA belts, you're assuming wrong. The protons will deposit energy in the body mass, and that's what you call RADS,
Good to know you hoaxers have thought every aspect of space flight thoroughly.
@Tweekerhead Well, the russian Phobos test for deep space radiation failed the other day for some reason, probably because they didn't want people to see all the on board organic life forms die on their way to mars, a little too mush at stake id say, like a hoax revelation for Apollo.
@Tweekerhead that's because all those "critters" were appropriately shielded, notice how they used very small animals & avoided larger monkeys?. Notice also how NASA never once sent any animal life? Phobos is suppose to be the first test for organic species sent into deep space greater "than 3 days," as mentioned by the planetary society & yet how long was the alleged longest Apollo? around 12?
@NASAvsPETE1 Apollo CM was more than adequately shielded.
The hull of the CM had the thickness to cut gamma ray rad' in half. It had an equivalency of over 20g/cm².
That's like having over 20 cm. of water around you.
Since there's hardly any gamma ray out beyond LEO the biggest hurdle as far as radiation is the Van Allen belts, especially the inner belt of protons of 100MeV at 10³ particles/cm² which the trajectory of Apollo11 for instance traveled through.
@moonhoaxlunatic1 think what you wish, 41 years tells us the story, and the Russians never once sent a Human. The Russians were always very concerned about deep space radiation, there were a few books on this topic I bought that are now no longer available at Amazon, (removed) since.
@NASAvsPETE1 Yes, the Russians WERE 'very concerned about space radiation' UNTIL they dispelled those fears with the highly instrumented circumlunar ZOND missions. Interestingly, they got essentially the same results for a circumlunar mission that were obtained via Apollo onboard radiation measurements; ~ 1 rem mission dose.
@occhamite "via Apollo onboard radiation measurements; ~ 1 rem mission dose." as they circled the earth, this reading reflects our own "protective layers". And I think you will find that the Russians worked pretty closely with the Americans, even David Scott spent considerable time liaising with USSR astronauts &Vodka, while all the time being heavily guarded by both the KGB & the CIA. With this kind of relationship between superpowers it wouldn't be difficult to fudge the numbers would it?
@NASAvsPETE1 I strongly suggest you invest some money in a calendar. Then look-up the dates of Zond-5, Apollo 8, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. You'll find your chronology is off by more than several years. Funny how the Russkies helped us fake our landings - took the P.R. black eye of the century in fact - and required nothing in return! (And don't even try Rene's "wheat-deal" line: No significant grain deal happened til Detente). SUCH generosity!
@NASACrooks Let my simplify this for you, since that's the only way you'll get it: The MOON-RACE happened in the 60's. DETENTE happened in the 70's. And isn't it odd that only a few years later, President Jimmy Carter EMBARGOED grain when the Sov's invaded Afghanistan, yet no exposure of the any faked moon landings was made. NvP1 is just using the classic hoaxer tactic: If you don't have any evidence, just make it up as you go along; and label the experts as part of the conspiracy.
No, he really does not know. Just like all of these hoaxables haven't got a clue. What is even worse is this ignorant attitude of these people acting they somehow know better than NASA. After all of these decades and all of the image-related technology, you would think, had there actually been evidence of fakery, the hoaxers would have been able to render some evidence. The only thing they've been able to bring is a bunch of nuts.
@occhamite I wouldnt worry, I have more information on the Zond project than you could poke a stick at, as for nothing in return for the USSR?, think again, one had a presidents promise, "both" were going to fake it, "one" had to, the win for the USSR was not to kill an astronaut in deep space, & save further money on their N1 project.
@NASAvsPETE1 "I wouldnt worry, I have more information on the..." Oh sure you do. We see how much you have, don't we.
SAVE MONEY ON THEIR N1 PROJECT!!!!????? THE 4TH LAUNCH ATTEMPT OCCURRED IN 1972!!! The project wasn't cancelled until 1976!!! Is this supposed to be yet another of those subjects you "have more information on than one can shake a stick at"?
@occhamite "THE 4TH LAUNCH ATTEMPT OCCURRED IN 1972!!!" of course they would have to keep this going, remember they had to keep face and show that they were making their attempt. Notice they sent more unmanned probes than the united states and brought back samples? they had rocket technology, (we all knew it), they just never wanted to kill anyone in deep space & never had the need to fake it either,. try to use your own innate calculating skills, if you have any.?
@NASAvsPETE1 .....curiouser and curiouser.... First you say "save further money on their N1 project. ", now, 2 posts later it's "of course they would have to keep this going, remember they had to keep face ..." You're all over the lot. You don't even make any sense. But thanks for the concise example of hoaxer "innate calculating skills", such as they are.
The moon landings were faked. Fuck, get a life.
JRCrowley 1 month ago
Very interesting. Thanks. The proof is in the detail!
benthejrporter 1 month ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
@Tweekerhead Wrong guess ol pal, I have conducted more research on the topic than you can poke a stick at, enjoy your dream, it's but a deluded one, made from pure moist hot Disney Bullshit.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Well I'm sure 43 years of hog wash has given you enough time to make "shit" up, go on make me laugh, I'm up for some comedy.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Yeeeeaaahhh I knew you were scientifically illiterate.
The ol' don't understand it so it must be faked.
Try reading.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Ha?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1
Haha!
moonhoaxlunatic1 1 month ago
@occhamite Invoking the name is necessary when one forgets about the foundations of NASA, by mentioning it infacr does the opposite it reveals ones true knowledge of the sinister NASA we should know.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
great vid.....proves that NASA are still a sham trying to cover up the hoax!
1THETRUTH10 2 months ago
Merry christmas everybody!
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@occhamite Funny how you discount the "nazi" thing so quickly, an obvious embarrassment one needs to try and forget quickly yeh?, but no it lingers within the deep roots of NASAs original foundations, a flimsy foundation indeed. no lies on my visit either, horrendous.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Having your reading comprehension problems again? I most assuredly do not "discount the "nazi" thing". What I do, most assuredly, discount is obtuse and disingenuous people who make pathetic attempts to conceal their lack of knowledge by invoking the name.
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite Yes interesting you want to "abolish free speech " no different to a nazi regime is it really ? liars and murders pretty much sums up the NASA fairy tale of Apollo, you must be proud to be apart of the very regime that murdered millions of Jews yeh? Happy Xmas :/
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 @NASAvsPETE1 'Yes interesting you want to "abolish free speech " ' I never said any such thing and you know it. OBVIOUSLY the line "That post is such a dense congestion of utter nonsense... one almost begins to yearn for the abolition of free speech." is in no way a call for it. If in some (I PRAY!) hypothetical world everyone abused the right the way you do, that might be another matter. THEN there might be no alternative.
occhamite 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 "you must be proud to be apart of the very ..."
Hah! You are so bankrupt of defenses for your absurd positions - you can only resort to the NAZI thing.
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite Well it's obvious you seem to avoid facts or credible evidence yourself, believe your hog wash all you like a man never stepped on the moon.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 I avoid nothing. Why don't you try giving us some verifiable facts, and you will then see whether or not they are dealt with. "Go ahead, make my day". Liar.
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite hey Occh, ever been to Auschwitz?, I went last year when I visited Poland, what an amazing revelation, I actually stood inside a gas chamber, I could almost feel the souls reaching out for me, the fathers, mothers & children that died with chlorine/phosgene gas inhalation, yeh they were shouting from the walls, maybe you should visit sometime to get a real feel of what it was like to see your very own family die before your OWN eyes, inspiring stuff to say the most... no less.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 "hey Occh, ever been to Auschwitz?" Oh sure, you were there. On the other hand, SOMETHING you say at some point in time will likely have a grain if truth in it... maybe you were there after all... it sounds like your idea a vacation resort. (And btw, YOU should visit Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng, as I DID)
occhamite 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1 It's a know fact that russian intelligence worked very closely with the united states, a known fact also that both were going to fake the missions portrayed through their own propaganda, the USSR never wanted to send a human in the first place, they didn't have the pressure of a presidents promise, the space race reallly was only created by one man, USSR had nothing to prove.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 "It's a know fact ..." Facts don't seem to be your forte. That post is such a dense congestion of utter nonsense... one almost begins to yearn for the abolition of free speech. I don't remember seeing anyone post so often, for so long, and mange to remain so completely devoid of fact. True to form, you simply make-up whatever you need as you go. CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to back-up those absurd claims is never offered - it's almost as if... there isn't any!
occhamite 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Ok, so no then.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
Did you people know that NASA sent a monkey out, 20 days before the Apollo, and it died 8 hours after it landed ?
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
Apollo 8 "we are going any way", need I say more.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@Changis158711 "the accident would not have occurred", yes.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
what most people don't understand with the Russian missions, is the fact that they did send a monkey, Zond 6 which many thought had failed because of a "failed" re entry that apparently "skipped" this wasn't the real case at all, they had a dead monkey on board that was killed half way during its mission because of radiation. The USSR never wanted to declare this the case because of their agreement with United States intelligence.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 From Wiki:
"Zond 6 used a relatively uncommon technique called "skip reentry" ... A few hours before reentry, a faulty O-ring rubber gasket caused the cabin to depressurise, killing all biologicals aboard."
A State Commission investigating the crash later found that the coronal discharge effect which caused the parachute to jettison would only occur at the 25 mm capsule pressure. If the capsule had been completely depressurised to a high vacuum, the accident would not have occurred.
Changis158711 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Nice story, can you back it up at all or did you just dream about it?
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
Jarrah on your final word that "apollo 15 " is a fake, we now have more than enough evidence to prove it is... all evidence was thrown... yet no debunk. here endeth the lesson, well done & congrats!!!
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
Jarrah White looks alooot like Jesus.
KiDtehEPiC 2 months ago
@KiDtehEPiC
Excuse me?! He's the messiah. For most hoaxfans.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@KiDtehEPiC you betta believe it, JESUS, he is!
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 I always though Jarrah looked a bit like Rik Mayall's character in "Mr Jolly Lives Next Door".
See watch?v=EGi6BBGHT5Q for proof ;-)
GlowWorm1962 2 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 "Rik Mayall", I gather was from the original "young ones", & if that's the case (for your "insightful" comparision) that would be considered a compliment to Jarrah as they were "Nuevo" & "Riskay" for their era, I enjoyed this program thoroughly, as for physical attributes? Naahh, JW has more leader qualities.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 The fact you consider it a compliment shows just what a retard you must be.
Along with how far up Jarrah's sphincter your tounge reaches =p
GlowWorm1962 2 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 the fact you have to resort to language with" tounge"s & " sphincter"s shows your own level of fetish, quite sick indeed.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@stalkervision Come back, have a discussion with us and we'll see who the dumb-ass is junior....I mean Hassabald.
Oh that's right, trolls' don't have discussions, they don't have an intellect to do so.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead
What's your intellect ? it sounds just ordinary.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen yes it is ordinary.
I'm a musician, a professional musician(oxymoron) and that's all.
But..... it was either that or an astronomer. No chics' no applause. So......
it was either get laid or sit in an observatory all night.
That's why I know more than the average hoax-nut.
Sorry...I love astrophysics, that's why I'm able to see posers like daddyo or any of the idiots. esp. Jarrah. Why won't he debate me? LOLOL hahahaha
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead cause you aint got shit bro.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Come here and have a discussion with me on the so called prohibitive aspects of the Moon landings then, we'll who's got the education or 'shit' as you call it.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead
So what does music got to do with flying to the Moon, other than such as Rammstein.....you are whining about scientist ? science know it happened, my ass.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen "Rammstein" as you know, sings the truth "Amerika", a beautiful piece, visuals & sound, they cut to the knuckle bone on Apollo... "weeeeeee all live in america america its wondebar"
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1
Ha...ha..I think Rammstein don't believe in the Moon landing.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen I think you Hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD? yes... merry xmas!
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@stalkervision It figures it would never occur to YOU, having seen only the losing end of it, that it's infinitely better to be making fertilizer than it is to be made INTO fertilizer. Come back if you can ever come up with something intelligent to say, and (for all the good it will do) leave you racial bigotry at the door.
occhamite 2 months ago
@stalkervision
Argument by personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. Just because YOU don't know anything about space flight doesn't mean no one else does.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
If you were really knowing something about space flight, you would have serious doubts about Apollo.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
I don't know 'something', I know a very lot. I looked at a few of your videos. I'm having serious doubts about your age.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
Oh seriously, you know a lot?
I would like to know what "lot" you know!
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Let's start with orbital mechanics, shall we? How does a space vehicle catches up with another vehicle in orbit? What primary elements are needed? Tell us.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
I hope that you have other sources than Apollo, otherwise you'll have some misconceptions.
The vehicle which is closer to the moon, if it has the same speed relatively to the moon, will have a little higher angular speed; the vehicle which must reach the orbit of the vehicle it must dock to turns according to an elliptical trajectory to get closer to the other vehicle.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
Normally, the first vehicle uses the hohmann transfer so get way from the moon, so it only has to momentary fire its engine when going from one arc of ellipse to the next one, when it must acquire a little more horizontal speed to engage on the next arc of ellipse; most time the engine is shut off.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
The LM must arrive on the orbit of the CM a little ahead of it; after it has made a flipover, it very slightly reduces its speed to allow the CM to join it, and makes a slight compensation with the RCS to remain on the orbit of the CM.
The docking is a delicate maneuver and requires a high precision.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
You probably have read many things in the documentation of Apollo, but many things are just stupidities and unphysical.
In the documentation, they say that the astronaut uses one star moreover the moon gravity to initialize the guidance inertial platform, but it's wrong, because two stars are needed moreover the moon gravity, because the LM flies in a 3D system.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Is that the best you can do? That is no answer to my question.
"unphysical"??? Hahaa The Semi-Major Axis and argument of Periapsis are still used for studies by academics. You fool. you don't know shit, do you?
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
O, and because you don't know shit, these two elements were first used by the Apollo missions using TLI.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Explain REFFSMMAT now you're starting the subject.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You're a bit slow Hunchbacked. Or is Google too slow for you?
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Google P52 and REFSMMAT. That should drive you on the track.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
"one star"
P52 determined the orientation of the universe around the space craft. Apollo's sextant was pointed towards a specified star.Once it was aligned, P52 was told that and the sextant was aimed at a second star for mark #2. From its internal table the computer then knew what the angle between the two stars would be.
Two stars Hunchbacked, two stars.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
I tell you that, in the documentation of Apollo, before departing from the moon, they say that the astronaut used only ONE star moreover the moon gravity to initialize the inertial platform.
I tell you what my eyes saw.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Give a source for that, please. I want to read it too.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
And you still did not answer my question about the six elements.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You're slow Hunchbacked. I'm off to my optics and try the ISS again.
Cheerio.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You're a nice amateur Hunchbacked, but don't challenge me on this.
Did you know that many amateur astronomers use the very basics of P52 for computer programs used with their backyard telescope for alignment? Pick two stars and my computer tells me the orientation of the universe around my home. Subsequently I can aim at any desired celestial body.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
What has astronomy got to do with Apollo?
And the "nice amateur" is a space engineer by formation who is currently a professional computer engineer working on real-time applications.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
I was wrong. You're not nice. You're just an amateur, having fun wrecking things.
"a professional computer engineer"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1, hmmm insulting my fellow countryman I see...??
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
Laugh while you can.
You'll laugh less when the scam is fully exposed.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Scam indeed, these fools keep trying, to no avail.. maybe they should get a better education?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
A professional Moon landing hoaxster......hahahahahohohoohohohhaha
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@hunchbacked this fool from the united states has no Idea, it is obvious.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
It's taking you a bit long Hunchbacked. Let me help yoy; we need 6 elements. Tell us about them please.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
It's been 9 minutes Hunchbacked. Are you still on Google?
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You fail Hunchbacked. It's these posts I pointed at.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
I fail?
No, you fail, for you never respond to my arguments.
Total silence on the real problems.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well Von Braun was A former member of the Nazi party, commissioned Sturmbannführer of the paramilitary SS and decorated Nazi war hero,then he worked for NASA and the Apollo missions. Hmm so they kind of we're liars and murderers after all?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@occhamite The N1 was a mere shell with a bomb inside it, designed to save the astronauts life, if it were to really work they would have reached the moon years before. Again their own focus was on unmanned probes, as they knew the unite states would fake it, so too they should as well, but I'm an easier manner, they lacked the film brilliance of Kubrick, MGM and the Disney show package.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Well, if you do believe everything your told you hold yourself at a significant disadvantage no doubt.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@occhamite How quickly you forget the integral need for propaganda on both sides, founded with great ambiguity and paradox, both sides required stability, both worked together to get it.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Just as all Apollo defenders must believe in everything the government tells them, you most also believe as Chev that rockets have no thrust in the vacuum of space and there should've been an exhaust plume on the Moon during the landings.
That fits for me.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead
1) Prove that rocket thrust in outer space is possible.
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
This will continue until my questions are answered so we're in for a fucking long wait....
Just to remind you again:
1) Prove that rocket thrust in outer space is possible.
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
Both answers should be given with total irrefutable evidence and facts. Your nightmare begineth!!
Chev4206 2 months ago
The moon hoax conspiracy theory is DEAD.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 No it isn't Dutchy pan. It is alive and very well and certainly is not conspiracy theory. Theory is speculation, the ApoNNo hoax is very much fact. Apollogists are so frightened of having their delusion ruined they'll cite anything form the Nosa Handbook of Bullshit to keep the dream alive. Try this:
When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206
Wrong again son. The hoax is a theory. Without evidence whatsoever. The hoax is alive in your head.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Continue with the rubbish you put out it makes for interesting reading, but true to form of typical apollogists you evade the question. So I shall repeat it. In fact there are two, as follows:
1) Prove irrefutably that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible. This way the Nosanauts could actually reach the moon set.....
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
Give them a little thought then get back to me. Looking forward.
Chev4206 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chev4206
If YOU know the radiation would have been lethal to astronauts on a Moon mission, then stop wasting your time here and publish your paper for a real peer review. Then become famous and make Jarrah jealous as hell.
"Looking forward"
- By posting nonsense here?
LOL
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@Chev4206
Btw; Paranoid Nut is not a valid career path.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@moonhoaxlunatic1 Answer the fucking questions. Two really simple posers that even an amateur troll, you, can get their braincell around.
Need a reminder? OK:
1) Prove rocket propulsion can work in outer space ( where there is nothing!! ).
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
A few of your fellow shills are really struggling with these, perhaps you should consult one another and form a thick wank, I'm sorry I mean think tank.
Chev4206 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chev4206
FYI; you are not blocked Chef. You continue to make such incredibly stupid arguments, no refutation is needed. So much less work to do, with you doing it for me.
LOL
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1
Just dream it is dead.
It is more alive than ever.
More and more evidence is coming out with the free access to the NASA documentation by internet.
So just dream, because dreams are all that are left to you.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@occhamite You didn't read my post, the N1 failed on purpose from the beginning, think, why would they only send unmanned probes and do it with perfection? , many more than the united states, it's obvious their development of rocketry wasn't an issue.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 YOU didn't read your post. But then what would be the necessity, when you only need make it up as you go.... So now N1 was DELIBERATELY faked! The backward USSR spends billions they don't have to deliberately fake a TOP SECRET project!
Let me save you some trouble: I'll make your next post for you: N1 was a secretly real fake. The faking was faked so it would be more convincing to nobody. It had to be real, but only so it would be a CONVINCING fake.
occhamite 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NASAvsPETE1 "yes indeed, I think you will find a 26 page PDF.." Utter hogwash as always.
freerepublic. com/focus/f-news/1054183/posts . I suppose your next step will be to claim that a "26 page PDF" occupies 2,900 cu. ft. of computer memory. And no doubt it does... on the computer YOU could come up with...
occhamite 2 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 2 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 ..More b.s.... as if you ever did any looking!
occhamite 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@occhamite The Russians never "failed", they brought their own samples back on unmanned missions. To them this was no doubt a win, exploration of the moon without killing a man in deep space from flares, and van Allen, remember on Apollo 8 they stated "where going anyway", as of anyone would put their lives on the line in an absurd manner, I ask you if you knew now about the effects of deep space radiation would you go? I think not.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 "The Russians never "failed"...." Did you read my last post? N1... try to remember that name, it's easy: "N", and then a "1".
And all Luna ever brought back was ~325 grams of blindly gathered dust & pebbles, In contrast to the ~860 lb of CAREFULLY CHOSEN Apollo samples. Radiation? You think wrong, as you always do. Nobody who ACTUALLY knows anything about it would try to claim Apollo crews were exposed to any dangerous radiation. NO? NAME ONE. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
occhamite 2 months ago
Type in "post mission interview of Apollo11" here on YouTube.
If you have anything more than 5 grams of brain inside your skull,the hoax is exposed to you.
ApolloWasRealHoax 2 months ago
I agree with chev, when will the first real moon landing take place?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
Also, this can't be stressed enough: why would NASA photoshop images with the wrong color and brightness? These are just a few of the glaring flaws in Jarrah's attempt to disprove the non-disprovable.
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
((And that is according to your own criteria of photographic authenticity))
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
The other thing, is that you make a disingenuous remark about the halo and the crater: the whole surface of the moon is covered in craters. The disturbance of surface soil and dust is still there. The halo is not going to be a perfectly circular shape; not anywhere near a crater; and leave a totally different color than the material that covers the surface of the moon. THAT would be evidence of fakery. Nice job NOT disproving ANYTHING!
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
In both images of the landing site, you can clearly see a lighter side facing the sun on the LM and you can see that there is a shadow on the far side, if you look closely at the photos at 1:56 and again at 2:02. Shadowing on the far side is all one would need if trying to ascertain authenticity of a sunlit object in a photo of the lunar surface. The objects in the image meet this requirement. What did you expect, that the LM would put on a dazzling light show? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
@stalkervision (2of2) And yes, Alexiey Leonov(the man who calls Apollo doubters(like you) "глупые люди" or "stupid people")along with the rest of the cosmonaut corps DID lobby the Politbureau for a manned circumlunar Zond in time to beat Apollo 8. But Zond was not yet reliable enough to be "man-rated" and the last thing the Leadership wanted was another "Soyuz 1" P.R. debacle
OBVIOUSLY, Leonov & co. thought the trip safe, even BEFORE all the data was in. Why do you make my case?
occhamite 2 months ago
When you're ready to have a discussion on the radiation in space let me know junior.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead When you've answered my question 'When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?' let me know son.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 In your little world? When they make a rocket that works in a vacuum.
I feel sorry for you.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Come on cunt and prove to me, to everyone, that rockets can actually operate in a vacuum. Just don't come back with that old chestnut where the thrust acts on the rocket itself. That's bullshit and you know it. By the way,
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No shit-mouth I don't want to, nor do I have to prove it to you.
I like you the way you are ignorant, conceited, stubborn and just plain stupid.
You'll provide many moments of amusement if you stay the way you are, in the dark.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Like ALL you want. The ball's in your court here sonny so please attempt an answer at the two questions.......
1) Can you prove how and why rocket thrust in a vacuum is possible remembering my previous criteria.
2) When will the first manned moon landing with real astronauts happen?
To maintain your reputation I think you ought to come back with a very good reply. Don't get too cocky, your reputation as a prized troll is on the line here.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 LOL Your posts are funny!
Ok, There's 14.7psi atmospheric pressure at sea level, when the SaturnV lifts off it blows out the air beneath it and is riding on a expanse of very hot gases, something has to give.
The 14.7psi doesn't matter any more, the Saturn V isn't held up or lifted by the atmosphere.
It's the expanse of hot gases underneath that lift a 6mill. lb. rocket.
.
Same as in the vacuum of space. When the volatile gases are mixed in the throat of the rocket engine....
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Chev4206 ...The gases expand out of the bell and something has to give.
The rocket engine in space is moving away from the expanse of hot gases that is coming out of the throat and the bell of the engine.
.
Since there is no friction in space a relatively small amount of thrust is needed.
Look up Gene Cernan's Gemini space walk, he tried to turn some levers, almost spun out of control, again Newton's 3rd law.
That'll be $20.00, pay-pal 4553722vr6
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead i second this question,"WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?"any ideas?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Well here is the thing. That doesnt make sense, because the throat and bell of the engine is exposed continuously to the vacuum. Any air in their would keep escaping due to the vacuum. Its like blowing air into a vacuum cleaner. Depending on the strength of the vacuum, the air gets sucked out faster and stronger than its being blown out.
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos No. The combustion chamber is pushing exhaust out faster than it can be 'sucked out'. Don't get sucked into thinking you have it all figured out because of your apparently infallible logic. Rockets work in space, we can see this, plenty of examples.
Look up the Hayabusa probe. It slowed, matched velocities with a comet, then accelerated away again. There's no way to do this without rockets.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@krisdevalle
Well then that should be easy to support. How faster must exhaust flow to counter the effect deep space vacuum?
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Perhaps you could inquire in other avenues. To a real aerospace engineer. Or look up the stats for the space shuttle.
That kind of thing.
krisdevalle 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos So you're saying that the only thing keeping the Saturn V aloft when launched is the surrounding air underneath ? MMmm Pretty strong air.
.
Tell ya' what, you guys have it your way.....stay in the dark.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Did I say anything about Saturn launching?
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Then how does the Saturn V lift off the ground?
You're saying the surrounding supplies the friction and the lift needed? ;-)
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead
Didnt you just say "expanse of hot gases"?
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@FoosMasoos Can you think of a better way to explain how a rocket works to Chev, who has the IQ of a salad-bar.
Or do not understand or believe a rocket has thrust in the vacuum of space ?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead I don't give a shit about 14.7psi and all that nonsense. You are so profoundly stupid that you've dived into the bucket that contains your ignorance. That's right dipshill there is no friction in space......
The gases expand into what exactly? NOTHING. FUCK ALL. ZILCH. ZIPPO.
I said prove it not talk about it.
But don't be naughty to try to evade the other question:
WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
We're waiting.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I was hoping for a response similar to this from you dip-shit.
Let me ask you this fucky. ...I mean flunky..
How is it a jet passenger plane like a Boeing 767 can travel faster at higher altitude?
Afterall the air is much thinner at 35,000ft than say....5,000ft.
Huh' fucky...How does that happen you hopeless ignorant inbred homunculus troglodyte ?
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead
That has to do with resistance, currents and safety.
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Throwing the toys out of your pram are we when backed up against a wall? Changing the subject, standard troll response.
I am going to continue to annoy you until my two questions are satisfactorily answered. Here's the reminder:
1) PROVE, yes prove, that rocket propulsion in outer space is possible. What jet planes have to do with it only you know.....
2) This is the biggie..... WHEN WILL AN ACTUAL MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Oh those insults.....
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 I explained it to you flunky, now send me the money.
July 20 1969, flunky.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead You have explained nothing because you do not know how to, but just to continue annoying you my questions to refresh your braincell are thus:
1) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION IN OUTER SPACE IS POSSIBLE. Trawl the depths of your vacuous head all you want. You cannot answer the question properly.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN? I don't mean those pathetic amateur actors that Nosa tried to pass off as real.
Two questions, two answers.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@Chev4206 No flunky I explained it so a mentally handicapped individual like you could understand. I just didn't make simple enough or you just need to go back and read it slower.
According to you, the 14.7 psi atmospheric pressure keeps the Saturn V aloft.
Weird assumption, go back and read, I don't have the time to teach handicapped, stubborn, conceited morons. good luck flunky
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tweekerhead ONCE AGAIN FOLKS AN APOLLOGIST SHILL IS MAKING UP STUFF TO MAKE ITSELF LOOK BONA FIDE. I have never ever mentioned Saturn V and you true to course have explained nothing. Littering your posts with nasty comments undermines you further, so please continue. In the meantime.....
1) PROVE THAT ROCKET PROPULSION IN OUTER SPACE IS POSSIBLE.
2) WHEN WILL THE FIRST MANNED MOON LANDING WITH REAL ASTRONAUTS HAPPEN?
Answer in any order you're comfortable with 1 then 2 or 2 then 1.
Chev4206 2 months ago
@stalkervision I wonder what you think your airing of your racial bigotry will get you. By the way folks, I'm not Thai - just plain old native-born wasp. I've known a few Thais though, any of whom I'd prefer to present company, I might add.
occhamite 2 months ago
@stalkervision What does it matter of Occ' is Thai' or not, he knows volumes more than you do Hassbald'.
How come Jarrah won't come out of his hole and have a discussion with any Apollo-believers?
Answer: because Jarrah doesn't know squat about the environment of space. Why else would he call his video series"Radioactive Anomaly" when referring to the Van Allen belts. There's a difference between radioactive & radiation, but he doesn't know that.
BTW..you're the shill here.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@stalkervision "then why does jarrah have..." Because jarrah did the lousy job researching the issue he always does. I'll supply the name for you, since you can't: SIR BERNARD LOVELL visited the USSR in mid-1963. Now (if you'd get yourself a caldendar, you might be able to follow the rest of this), The instrumented Zond flights, occurred in 1968 & 9(notice the "8" & "9"where the "3" was when I referred to Lovell's trip - that means they happened 5 & 6 years LATER) ... (cont'd)
occhamite 2 months ago
Comment removed
occhamite 2 months ago
@stalkervision
Yes, I did see that awhile ago. And I recall no shuttle went higher than 600km. And even at that low height, the astronauts where experiencing radiation passing through their skull, flashing in the back of their eye...
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
Why do you think they went to ALL this trouble to fake the moon missions if they were going to forget blast craters and engine plumes?? lol
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
Blast craters would bring up too many questions. Think about it.
Plumes were hard to fake in a vacuum environment. Think about it. Though they tried.
FoosMasoos 2 months ago
I guess the real question is, if you put monkey in a satellite at 1000 miles how much of its skin will be removed to the bone in the first 5 minutes ? I'd say quite a significant amount with a nasty flare and van Allen.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 If you put a monkey 1000 miles high, his bodily fluids will boil away in the vacuum of space, but he'll die without oxygen before that happens.
If you think a body will fry in the VA belts, you're assuming wrong. The protons will deposit energy in the body mass, and that's what you call RADS,
Good to know you hoaxers have thought every aspect of space flight thoroughly.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead Well, the russian Phobos test for deep space radiation failed the other day for some reason, probably because they didn't want people to see all the on board organic life forms die on their way to mars, a little too mush at stake id say, like a hoax revelation for Apollo.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Ever heard of Zond 5 ? 1968, A biological payload of two russian tortoises, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds & bacteria.
All those 'critters' did pretty well.
A trip to Mars is one thing a lunar landing is another. Two completely different shielding requirements.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@Tweekerhead that's because all those "critters" were appropriately shielded, notice how they used very small animals & avoided larger monkeys?. Notice also how NASA never once sent any animal life? Phobos is suppose to be the first test for organic species sent into deep space greater "than 3 days," as mentioned by the planetary society & yet how long was the alleged longest Apollo? around 12?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Apollo CM was more than adequately shielded.
The hull of the CM had the thickness to cut gamma ray rad' in half. It had an equivalency of over 20g/cm².
That's like having over 20 cm. of water around you.
Since there's hardly any gamma ray out beyond LEO the biggest hurdle as far as radiation is the Van Allen belts, especially the inner belt of protons of 100MeV at 10³ particles/cm² which the trajectory of Apollo11 for instance traveled through.
Apollo was shielded well.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1
"for some reason"
"probably because"
Typical hoax parlance.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@moonhoaxlunatic1 think what you wish, 41 years tells us the story, and the Russians never once sent a Human. The Russians were always very concerned about deep space radiation, there were a few books on this topic I bought that are now no longer available at Amazon, (removed) since.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1
"the Russians were always very concerned about deep space radiation"
- Right. So were/are the Americans and severeal other space agencies.
I see you got your answer already. I'm afraid that you don't understand it.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 Yes, the Russians WERE 'very concerned about space radiation' UNTIL they dispelled those fears with the highly instrumented circumlunar ZOND missions. Interestingly, they got essentially the same results for a circumlunar mission that were obtained via Apollo onboard radiation measurements; ~ 1 rem mission dose.
cdsweb. cern. ch/record/864491/files/p484. pdf
astronautix. com/astros/fm2. htm
lsda. jsc. nasa. gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2. jpg
occhamite 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@occhamite cdsweb. cern. ch/record/864491/files/p484. pdf
astronautix. com/astros/fm2. htm
lsda. jsc. nasa. gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2. jpg
.
Gotta love a guy who backs up his words with something other than Y-Tube videos.
Tweekerhead 2 months ago
@occhamite "via Apollo onboard radiation measurements; ~ 1 rem mission dose." as they circled the earth, this reading reflects our own "protective layers". And I think you will find that the Russians worked pretty closely with the Americans, even David Scott spent considerable time liaising with USSR astronauts &Vodka, while all the time being heavily guarded by both the KGB & the CIA. With this kind of relationship between superpowers it wouldn't be difficult to fudge the numbers would it?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 I strongly suggest you invest some money in a calendar. Then look-up the dates of Zond-5, Apollo 8, and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. You'll find your chronology is off by more than several years. Funny how the Russkies helped us fake our landings - took the P.R. black eye of the century in fact - and required nothing in return! (And don't even try Rene's "wheat-deal" line: No significant grain deal happened til Detente). SUCH generosity!
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite
Even funnier how they received about $5bn in grain in order to close their eyes.
NASACrooks 2 months ago
@NASACrooks Let my simplify this for you, since that's the only way you'll get it: The MOON-RACE happened in the 60's. DETENTE happened in the 70's. And isn't it odd that only a few years later, President Jimmy Carter EMBARGOED grain when the Sov's invaded Afghanistan, yet no exposure of the any faked moon landings was made. NvP1 is just using the classic hoaxer tactic: If you don't have any evidence, just make it up as you go along; and label the experts as part of the conspiracy.
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite
The "moon race"? What the fuck is that?
NASACrooks 2 months ago
@NASACrooks You really don't know, do you!
russianspaceweb. com/chronology_moon_race. html
occhamite 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@occhamite
No, he really does not know. Just like all of these hoaxables haven't got a clue. What is even worse is this ignorant attitude of these people acting they somehow know better than NASA. After all of these decades and all of the image-related technology, you would think, had there actually been evidence of fakery, the hoaxers would have been able to render some evidence. The only thing they've been able to bring is a bunch of nuts.
moonhoaxlunatic1 2 months ago
@occhamite I wouldnt worry, I have more information on the Zond project than you could poke a stick at, as for nothing in return for the USSR?, think again, one had a presidents promise, "both" were going to fake it, "one" had to, the win for the USSR was not to kill an astronaut in deep space, & save further money on their N1 project.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
@NASAvsPETE1 "I wouldnt worry, I have more information on the..." Oh sure you do. We see how much you have, don't we.
SAVE MONEY ON THEIR N1 PROJECT!!!!????? THE 4TH LAUNCH ATTEMPT OCCURRED IN 1972!!! The project wasn't cancelled until 1976!!! Is this supposed to be yet another of those subjects you "have more information on than one can shake a stick at"?
occhamite 2 months ago
@occhamite "THE 4TH LAUNCH ATTEMPT OCCURRED IN 1972!!!" of course they would have to keep this going, remember they had to keep face and show that they were making their attempt. Notice they sent more unmanned probes than the united states and brought back samples? they had rocket technology, (we all knew it), they just never wanted to kill anyone in deep space & never had the need to fake it either,. try to use your own innate calculating skills, if you have any.?
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NASAvsPETE1 .....curiouser and curiouser.... First you say "save further money on their N1 project. ", now, 2 posts later it's "of course they would have to keep this going, remember they had to keep face ..." You're all over the lot. You don't even make any sense. But thanks for the concise example of hoaxer "innate calculating skills", such as they are.
... Nice to have one's work done for one....
occhamite 2 months ago