With every great expedition, exploration, and discovery, there has been doubters and disbelievers. People refused (and still refuse! - see Flat Earth Society) to believe the Earth was round, and the Earth moved around the Sun. This is no different, except that in modern times such things are refuted on the basis of some sinister conspiracy, derived from circumstantial or ill-informed evidence.
“If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.” - Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt.
@CNN911Fakes If there was lunar soil collected from the moon and brought back to Earth, you would think the simulants would be consistent in their chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties. They are not and therefore, this has led me to believe that NASA never collected lunar soil because they never went to the moon.
Nothing has "led you to believe" anything. All your beliefs are prepackaged, don't pretend what tipped your scale has been one (of the poorest if I may add) JW video(s). Nobody finds this act of yours believable at any rate.
@CNN911Fakes In any case, Jarrah White showed that NASA’s own fake lunar simulant cannot sustain “One Giant Leap for Mankind” because the dust clearly and evidentially collapses in on itself. NASA never went the moon and Kris’ ass is full of shit!
You failed in brainwashing me, and I praise higher power that I have the will to stand up against you the power of the majority. Even it would had made the life much easier to just follow along.
I hope you see the irony in your message. "You failed to brainwash me" followed by "I praise higher power". Obviously you were brainwashed to some degree, and follow the majority in being religious.
Along with the entry into WW2 and the resolution of the cuban missle crisis, the Moon landing was one of the USA's greatest achievments. Infact, it was the greatest achievment Man has ever accomplished and the USA can be very proud.
You and your shill associates have not answered the question about the humidity inside the command module as configured by NASA.
I have asserted, based on shill facts, that the humidity was 0%.
Be intellectually honest and tell us what the hunmidity was inside the NASA command module.
(ps, if I did moon hoax, I wouild make a killer video on precisely this issue - it is conclusive, but, alas, I specialize in the 9/11 attack on America by our leaders)
@krisdevalle Gosh, intellectual dishonesty in all it's sordid excremental glory raises its bloodied head. I ask the shill that made the statement about intellectual dishonesty and, I guess there' been a shift change, the most obviously intellectually dishonest shill hijacks the thread with intellectual dishonesty, again.
If you don't know, or knowing that I know frightens you, don't answer the question; "what was the relative humidity on the AA11" command module?
Neither of us actually know what this is; whether it is true or not.
You can make this claim; verifying it is another question. It seems like common sense that it would be difficult to retain 0% humidity due to the addition of human respiration, unless you were using filters.
No need to get so pissy though. I understand this is your latest tack, but figuring out why it is relevant is another exciting question.
@krisdevalle That's interesting. I hadn't actually considered they would try to keep the humidity zero. I thought they would try to keep the environment from blowing up (except when called upon as with the apollo 1 crew, bless them). Keeping the ambient mix at 60% O2 and 40% inert gas (you have never told us what it was) means zero H2O (except for those small amounts coming from various moisture sources that would dry immediately),
In harsh environments, humidity is hard to maintain.
@CNN911Fakes I think you have assumed that humidity levels are included when describing the atmosphere gas mix, and this is obviously not the accepted practice in all available technical documentation, for any cabin environment described for any craft.
If you can establish a precedent; ie, some doco where atmosphere is described thus, then you may have a point. However it appears humidity levels are described separately to gas mix.
@krisdevalle Ah, more shill science - like the roll of duct tape - "hey guys, a fender may break on your dune buggy, so take this with you, just in case"
"Oh, yeh, I know that the payload of the saturn rocket is determined down to the gram (not too much fuel and God save us, not too little!), but you never know."
"hey guys, we have successfully fooled the people of America that AA1 was accidental, so now we need to have a specific mix, except for anything else that happens to get in there"
@krisdevalle Too complicated for you to relate to our audience here?
I am speaking only of AA11. And, specifically, on the way out, not back, not that there should be much difference.
Forgot to mention, the water molecule is much smaller than the oxygen molecule, meaning that an airtight container, such as the command module, was not water tight and could not have been made water tight within any kind of budget constraints.
That means that any vapor that may appear quickly dissipates.
For once he's right, and I'm completely baffled by that. Guess the end of the world is truly approaching. Anyway, 1 atom of oxygen is larger than 2 atoms of hydrogen, even though it's not much larger, but still.
See I knew you were talking out of your ass. Since you were talking about *size* and not about *mass* then I'm pretty much correct, whereas you managed to throw away what little credibility you might have regained with your previous comment. A molecule of oxygen is 1.56 times the size of a molecule of water. Not 8 times, mongo.
@GeneralSamov Get your dictionary out. See if you can find the difference between an atom and a molecule.
An atom of O has MW 16, A molecule (O2) has a MW of 32. An atom of H has a MW of 1. A molecule (H2) has a molecular weight of 2.
A molecule af water has a MW of 18. 32/18 is 1.778 meaning a molecule of O is 78% larger than a molecule of water. H20 is 56% (18/32) of the size of O2. That's not phi, disney.
Shill science and understanding; "they pay us to say this. What does it mean?"
We're definitely making progress, so I salute it for that. Notice how we already got from 8 times to 1.778 times. But we're still not quite there. You need one more step: you need to get the densities of both oxygen and water and in connection with Avogadro's number (to figure out the number of molecules/mol) finding the actual volume of a molecule.
@GeneralSamov You know, you need to read your posts. You did one of your many "cover the front page" posts with your fellow shill saying that Oxygen was only slighty bigger than hydrogen. YOu had correctly broken the water molecule into 2 - a single oxygen atom and a single hydrogen molecule.
You also broke the oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen atoms. Then, because your associate was so wrong, you compared the unequal parts - one oxygen atom versus one hydrogen molecule. You were wrong. Read it.
Why do you keep farting? You should be more respective towards other people. Keep you mouth closed to prevent any further unfortunate mishappenings of that sort, that would be much appreciated.
@krisdevalle I certainly don't have to try to prove a negative. None of the materials used and the methods of construction of those matertials would stop water vapor.
You are welcome to prove otherwise.
You have not asserted a humidity level above 0, so that is all that is on the table - zero. Tell us what it might be and your source. Hope it is better than your water/hydrogen guffaw.
@CNN911Fakes I was doing some research about the JSC-1 (Lunar Simulant) that Jarrah White used to deflate the Mythbusters’ demo and proved that footprints couldn’t be made without moisture. Apparently, the JSC-1 was made in 1994 to replicate the same physical properties of lunar dust. It is just basaltic ash with high glass contents. Why did this simulant take almost 3 decades later to come out?
@CNN911Fakes I guess NASA thought this simulant would convince fools that the moon landing did occur because moon dust was collected and brought back to Earth, but why was there an earlier lunar simulant prior to the JSC-1? It was called MLS-1 which was manufactured from University of Minnesota and made from basaltic rock only.
@mrwonderfulman2011 Lewis Carroll wrote "through the looking glass" after "alice in wonderland"
Adding glass to the mix is exactly right for this fantasy and thus the right sequel.
If you watch ArcAngel4Myke's videos, you will find that the astroboughts used the word "glass" t refer to raindrops on their equipment. It rained often during the filming of the fantasy. A fair number of NASA photos show the rain.
@CNN911Fakes The Moon Bay was found in Google Earth out in area 51 where they had the outdoor studio Moonset. NASA was busted right there. But the shills insist on perpetuating the Moon Landings LIE anyway. They are a joke.
@CNN911Fakes But all the technical documentation lists the humidity levels.
Today, in 2012, is the first time I've ever heard your claim. You are neither an aerospace engineer, nor are you an academic. The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you feel these numbers or listings are in error, then prove as such.
It is relatively easy to find out the numbers. which are much higher than your stated claim.
@krisdevalle Such a disinfo shill. I am seeking your number and why you think it is correct. I care not whether you are right or wrong as you don't know and you are not permitted to really know anyway; ignorant shoveling of disinfo excrement is much easier than out and out lying.
Tell us what the AA11 humidity was in their command module according to the official lie. Afterwards, tell us how much water a person needs per day and how much water the AA11 astroboughts carried with them.
@CNN911Fakes Why bother? Find the information yourself. It's out there, and you can find it the same way I did. Because you won't believe me if I tell you, that much is clear.
I'll give you a tip though - the fuel cells used on the craft generated water as a byproduct, which was also used as potable water.
@krisdevalle Ah, please? Pretty please? Tell us what you know! Please share your extensive research knowlege (like the relative size of O2 and H2O, guffaw) with us seekers.
What was the relative humidity inside the command module?
"water molecule is much smaller than the oxygen molecule"
Is 1.56 times the size "much larger" now? Oh right, you were just talking out of your ass again. I'm amazed however that you correctly guessed which molecule has a bigger size.
So, he finally bravely stepped forward with this statement: “If you can establish a precedent...then you may have a point. However it appears humidity levels are described separately to gas mix.”
I think if he had taken the hint word “anesthesiologist”, which I left in a comment a few days ago, he (or his bosses) wouldn't have his foot stuck in his mouth right now. :D
Why are you so keen in explaining your methods to everyone? I thought that if you were going to be intellectually dishonest, you should at least not be so blatantly obvious about it.
But yeah, your description of what you do here was pretty accurate. In fact, I doubt whether I've seen any real attempt at conducting a discussion from your side, and if you actually did get caught into one, you got either quickly dismantled or you weaseled out of it yourself. That's sad.
The American cowboy scientist Neil Armstrong stated that he was photographing the sorda corolla when he was on the "moon" and I believe the other two cowboy scientists were also assist him with this important sorda corolla thing.I'm only a psychiatrist who used to assist the police to press charges to all kinds of criminals,and I must admit I have no idea about sorda corolla stuff. So naturally my question is,what in the name of fuck is the sorda corolla?
@NASACrooks That's the celestial event that they claim the specialized eauipment needed to see it was on the command module and did not travel to the fake moon bay surface with the astroboughts.
So, just another little mistake from the 3 stooges in addition to not knowing what it was (do you like soda corollas, getting caught in the rain?)
@nameofthepen, I don't consider it long. It doesn't explain full 360 degree video pans shot several times during the Apollo program. It doesn't explain film shot from the lunar rover as it covers 1/2 mile of terrain. It doesn't explain how none of Kubrick's films look the 100 hours of Apollo video. It also doesn't explain how his whereabouts are accounted for at that time. It doesn't explain how lunar mountain range profiles then, match perfectly those seen in modern, 3D mapping.
everything ppl bring up can be explained, anyone who says otherwise hasn't done any research and only want to believe it because they are afraid that if the usa did something like this then they might try to do something else even more awsome
@nameofthepen well if you can't prove its a movie then the only other possiblity is that it is real, all the facts support it being real, name one that doesn't support it being real
@nameofthepen yes there is things that support it like videos and reports along with photos, so yes there are a ton of things that support it, there is however no real proof that supports anything to suggest that it is fake, also i dont have a tv (cries) friend crushed it with a bat while playing in the house
@Aeronauticalexplorer, wouldn't we be stupid to believe this was done in a studio when no one has shown us photos or video of the studio, hoax theorists can't agree on where they studio was, there is no documentation or testimony & it would require such a gigantic, column-less building that doesn't exist? Wouldn't we be idiots to believe something with no substantiation whatsoever. Sorry, but I won't believe something just because you can imagine it.
Nice to see the stoned old man keeping silent most of the time, and just randomly complaining about his cold tea and hurting knees here and there. After all, we don't want to send you to the retirement home just yet...
Besides, in a whole weekend you could have done a quick check yourself, had you been interested, you lazy old incontinent fuck.
@DecayedOfferings, you have just said nothing. So, your grandfather knows an astronaut. That doesn't nullify the scientific data from 9 trips to the moon. Until you can give a name and put words into quotation marks from this astronaut, you offer nothing but hearsay.
Have you guys heard that NASA have declared The so-called Apollo landing sites, for no fly zone ? man you got to be kidding, you Moon landers are laughable, totally pathetic.
Lucky I never landed on the Moon. I bet you complain a lot when you visit a museum and find a rope or tape in front of you, signifying you're not allowed to get any nearer to the subject than that. I bet you also complain about other irrelevant and completely minimal stuff, like for example having to pay when you board a bus, or not being allowed into area 51 (OH NOES!!)
No it doesn't. David Percy is a proven liar, and if you're going to endorse his claims you're a liar too. The "jump salute" video that he shows wasn't sped up enough. Jarrah White then made the same "mistake" as Percy, i.e. playing the footage at 150% speed to get it to double the original speed. Of course, landing believers aren't retards like the liars Percy and JW, so the mistake was quickly spotted and JW was ridiculed for it long afterwards.
@Aeronauticalexplorer no its not a lie, with almost any high powered space telescope you can see the landing spot, look for hobble and moon landing spot photos, just because people think its not true doesn't mean its not true
@krisdevalle Do you see any drawbacks in the Mythbusters demonstration Kris? I would just like to see the flip side of this coin. You mention over and over again how Jarrah White used his bedroom to show how lunar simulant collapses in on itself whenever he takes a step into the soil, but what do you think about the Mythbusters' demonstration? Are there any flaws there?
@krisdevalle It is supposed to simulate the Moon sand, genius. NASA sells it. Why don't they sell the real shit if they really shoveled 800lbs of it in their "space ship"? Where the fuck is it all?
@krisdevalle Yes it does. Jarrah White wasted 300$ on fake moon sand and Mythbusters conducted their experiment in falsehood with a predetermined outcome. Both in Earth's gravity. So what do they prove? Nothing. But what is notable is that there are such vivid footprints in the NASA photos but in the videos they collapse just like Jarrah White's did. More over, they were able to make footprints but nothing from the exahust gas blowing gas onto the loose moon sand. That just does not add up.
@krisdevalle You obviously don't understand my comment. I said the Mythbusters experiment was a predetermined outcome and Jarrah White wasted $300 on the fake moon sand sold to him by NASA and that both experiments prove Nothing. So you are not making any sense. A usual occurrence.
I guess we should simply use the rest of the evidence that supports the lunar landings. You know, photos, film, Soviet deep space tracking, pro and amateer astronomer photos and witnessing, eyewitnesss viewing the Saturn launches, interception of radio communications, geologists worldwide confirming moonrock, LRO pix, Kaguya images, et cetera.
@krisdevalle But we went over all of that already recently. You act like we never did. Soviet deep space tracking is a lie. They could't even track their own craft. They relied on a NASA network etc. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the NASA moonlandigs claim.
@krisdevalle They relied on Jodrell Bank which is a NASA and British network to track their craft because they had not the capabilities. This is well known outside of the moonlandings argument. So to say that the USSR Soviets Russians tracked Apollo to the Moon is a Bald Face LIE!
Jodrell tracked a few of the Soviet probes, sure. But not FOR the USSR.
I was just googling for the information, and you're just confused.
Good try though. However, as I maintain, if you wish to prove that Jodrell Bank tracked the Soviet probes because there was no Soviet deep space tracking, then supply a link.
Can't be that hard? I mean, if you're so right! Unless... unless... you're wrong?
@krisdevalle Okay Kris, let's talk about the JSC-1? It was manufactured in 94 to approximate the chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties of lunar dust. It is a basaltic ash with a high glass content. What does this prove? That NASA had to have gone all the way to the moon to replicate lunar soil here on earth? That's probably what they want people to think after manufacturing this product. The MLS-1 was an earlier lunar soil made from basaltic rock.
In a letter to Dryden dated 23 July 1963, Lovell described his visit: During this time I was taken to the major Soviet optical and radio observatories and to the deep space tracking network, a station which has not so far been seen by Western eyes
@krisdevalle Either way, both simulants were manufactured differently. This leads me to believe that we don’t know what real lunar soil is because we don’t have any here on earth because no human ever went to the moon to get any. Simple stuff Kris!
@krisdevalle In any case, Jarrah White used the JSC-1 to do an experiment where he took one giant leap for mankind into the soil and very sadly could not replicate the footprint that the famous Buzzy Aldrin had made way, way back in the days of yore. I am convinced that the moon landing did not happen Kris. No one wants to believe it's fake, but it is and the truth will unfold in the future. Certainly not any time soon Kris because we are not ready to explore the moon surface yet.
@krisdevalle Consider these two possibilities Kris. First, NASA never went to the moon and therefore the lunar stimulant has no relevance to real lunar soil in terms of its chemical and mineral properties. Second, NASA sends Jarrah White what they call a "JSC-1 simulant" which in any case could not replicate the Buzz Aldrin footprint because the dust collapses in on itself. Both events conclude no moon landing Kris. Not hard to figure out?
@mrwonderfulman2011 Or third, the simulant does not completely mimic the properties of the soil so it's difficult to keep an imprint in it unless you were in an airless, 1/6 gravity environment.
This scenario is just as plausible as the others, unless you were being intellectually dishonest.
Heh, nameofthepenis also doesn't. You'll have to get used to the idea that he does. And he makes money off of tards like you that buy into his bullshit. Those $300 he just earned selling lies around, like all the other propagandists, like Percy, Sibrel, Jack white, the late Kaysing and Rene and so on and so forth. Open your eyes.
@GeneralSamov Well, I am sure you're not bad yourself either Sunshine! :) I am sure you're not as handsome as Kris though! He's hard to beat I'm afraid especially with that cute little hat!
And let's not even lose time on the "wire reflections" Percy seems so sure he's seeing. Probably as much as CornFlakes believes he's seeing frogs (that is not at all, in case you're wondering). The first reflection is obviously lens flare, as otherwise the "wire" would be going upwards diagonally, as opposed to how wire support should go, straight up vertically. The second one is even more laughable, as it's obviously damaged film (irregular shape).
What is clear is you're a retarded liar. take a screenshot an draw a line from the astronaut's back of the head and through the reflection. It's inclined at least 10 degrees clockwise. I took a screenshot myself and drew the lines, and I still got it on my computer. I might even host it on tinypic or something, but then again, what's the use. Thick skulls don't go hand in hand with clarity of vision, objectivity and impartiality.
@GeneralSamov 10 degrees is not much. Wire rigs can go way more than that. There is tension on the wire cables. I have used rigs similar to what NASA used. They don't have to be perfectly vertical at all times. When they are pulled in one direction they will go diagonal until it slides on the track to catch up. You are not mechanically inclined.. so whats the use. You are also too dumb to understand anything that requires a tiny bit of intelligence.
nice home-made video
Scoutrussp7 17 seconds ago
43 years later... it is obvious today that they never really walked on the Moon. The whole thing turned out to be another government Lie.
Aeronauticalexplorer 6 hours ago
why dont NASA give us proof to shut us all up? proof talks, bullshit walks.
iwanaGoFast2010 15 hours ago
@iwanaGoFast2010
Well said. The more the hide,the more it shows they are guilty.
NASACrooks 6 hours ago
@iwanaGoFast2010 because NASA has no proof.
Aeronauticalexplorer 6 hours ago
The First Fake Moon landing 1969
Aeronauticalexplorer 15 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With every great expedition, exploration, and discovery, there has been doubters and disbelievers. People refused (and still refuse! - see Flat Earth Society) to believe the Earth was round, and the Earth moved around the Sun. This is no different, except that in modern times such things are refuted on the basis of some sinister conspiracy, derived from circumstantial or ill-informed evidence.
Face it – we landed on the Moon!
norjop 16 hours ago
Comment removed
norjop 16 hours ago
“If people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.” - Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt.
TheFACTSRUS 16 hours ago 7
@TheFACTSRUS $1 million per word! Pure genius!
CNN911Fakes 15 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes If there was lunar soil collected from the moon and brought back to Earth, you would think the simulants would be consistent in their chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties. They are not and therefore, this has led me to believe that NASA never collected lunar soil because they never went to the moon.
mrwonderfulman2011 15 hours ago
@nameofthepenis2011
Nothing has "led you to believe" anything. All your beliefs are prepackaged, don't pretend what tipped your scale has been one (of the poorest if I may add) JW video(s). Nobody finds this act of yours believable at any rate.
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes In any case, Jarrah White showed that NASA’s own fake lunar simulant cannot sustain “One Giant Leap for Mankind” because the dust clearly and evidentially collapses in on itself. NASA never went the moon and Kris’ ass is full of shit!
mrwonderfulman2011 15 hours ago
@TheFACTSRUS
You failed in brainwashing me, and I praise higher power that I have the will to stand up against you the power of the majority. Even it would had made the life much easier to just follow along.
kennjohnsen 2 hours ago
@kennjohnsen
I hope you see the irony in your message. "You failed to brainwash me" followed by "I praise higher power". Obviously you were brainwashed to some degree, and follow the majority in being religious.
Shamanstyle 1 hour ago
This video was recorded in a studio.
Aeronauticalexplorer 17 hours ago
Boring
norjop 17 hours ago
Thank you, America. From, Italy.
MyAccount4TrollingU 17 hours ago in playlist More videos from beanz2u
They Faked the Moonlandings.
Aeronauticalexplorer 17 hours ago
Best show in town is right here! :-)
v
v
nameofthepen 17 hours ago
You should kill us all on sight!
CardCaptorDeadpool 18 hours ago
You should kill us all on sight!
CardCaptorDeadpool 18 hours ago
FAKE
JEWTUBEisMOSSAD 19 hours ago
Oh here we are. For Fakes, who just finds it all too hard:
bit. ly/wKpdB8
Just remove the space from that url.
krisdevalle 20 hours ago
Along with the entry into WW2 and the resolution of the cuban missle crisis, the Moon landing was one of the USA's greatest achievments. Infact, it was the greatest achievment Man has ever accomplished and the USA can be very proud.
Pentdad 20 hours ago
Intellectually dishonest is a hoaxtard's middle name(s).
norjop 21 hours ago
@norjop Let's test that assertion.
You and your shill associates have not answered the question about the humidity inside the command module as configured by NASA.
I have asserted, based on shill facts, that the humidity was 0%.
Be intellectually honest and tell us what the hunmidity was inside the NASA command module.
(ps, if I did moon hoax, I wouild make a killer video on precisely this issue - it is conclusive, but, alas, I specialize in the 9/11 attack on America by our leaders)
CNN911Fakes 20 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes What's all that meant to prove?
What was the humidity? Is this going to bring the hoax tumbling down?
What was the humidity level on the Gemini craft? In the Mercury capsule? In the Space Shuttle? In the ISS?
Who cares? Perhaps you'd best explain why this is at all relevant.
krisdevalle 20 hours ago
@krisdevalle Gosh, intellectual dishonesty in all it's sordid excremental glory raises its bloodied head. I ask the shill that made the statement about intellectual dishonesty and, I guess there' been a shift change, the most obviously intellectually dishonest shill hijacks the thread with intellectual dishonesty, again.
If you don't know, or knowing that I know frightens you, don't answer the question; "what was the relative humidity on the AA11" command module?
I claim it was zero%.
CNN911Fakes 20 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes Well okay.
Neither of us actually know what this is; whether it is true or not.
You can make this claim; verifying it is another question. It seems like common sense that it would be difficult to retain 0% humidity due to the addition of human respiration, unless you were using filters.
No need to get so pissy though. I understand this is your latest tack, but figuring out why it is relevant is another exciting question.
krisdevalle 20 hours ago
@krisdevalle That's interesting. I hadn't actually considered they would try to keep the humidity zero. I thought they would try to keep the environment from blowing up (except when called upon as with the apollo 1 crew, bless them). Keeping the ambient mix at 60% O2 and 40% inert gas (you have never told us what it was) means zero H2O (except for those small amounts coming from various moisture sources that would dry immediately),
In harsh environments, humidity is hard to maintain.
CNN911Fakes 19 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes I think you have assumed that humidity levels are included when describing the atmosphere gas mix, and this is obviously not the accepted practice in all available technical documentation, for any cabin environment described for any craft.
If you can establish a precedent; ie, some doco where atmosphere is described thus, then you may have a point. However it appears humidity levels are described separately to gas mix.
krisdevalle 19 hours ago
@krisdevalle Ah, more shill science - like the roll of duct tape - "hey guys, a fender may break on your dune buggy, so take this with you, just in case"
"Oh, yeh, I know that the payload of the saturn rocket is determined down to the gram (not too much fuel and God save us, not too little!), but you never know."
"hey guys, we have successfully fooled the people of America that AA1 was accidental, so now we need to have a specific mix, except for anything else that happens to get in there"
CNN911Fakes 18 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes No luck establishing any precedents to your claims then I presume.
There's an excellent roundup of the various atmosphere and humidity mixes for both spacecraft and space stations here:
ntrs. nasa. gov/archive/nasa/casi. ntrs. nasa. gov/20080031131_2008026503. pdf
I am also glad we can discuss this civilly with a minimum of slander or name-calling. It's refreshing.
krisdevalle 18 hours ago
@krisdevalle Too complicated for you to relate to our audience here?
I am speaking only of AA11. And, specifically, on the way out, not back, not that there should be much difference.
Forgot to mention, the water molecule is much smaller than the oxygen molecule, meaning that an airtight container, such as the command module, was not water tight and could not have been made water tight within any kind of budget constraints.
That means that any vapor that may appear quickly dissipates.
CNN911Fakes 17 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes But oxygen is 2 atoms and water is 3.
So a water molecule is bigger.
krisdevalle 17 hours ago
@krisdevalle
For once he's right, and I'm completely baffled by that. Guess the end of the world is truly approaching. Anyway, 1 atom of oxygen is larger than 2 atoms of hydrogen, even though it's not much larger, but still.
GeneralSamov 17 hours ago
@GeneralSamov Well whaddya know. I was took quick to assume, and made a mistake.
Happy to admit that.
krisdevalle 17 hours ago
@krisdevalle Your mother made a mistake
Aeronauticalexplorer 17 hours ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer I'll you 6 out of 10 for that one. That was nearly half-decent.
krisdevalle 17 hours ago
Oh look the circus is in town, they let Aeronauticalexplorer loose again
GeneralSamov 17 hours ago
@GeneralSamov More shill science. YOu guys really need to read something before hi-jacking conversations and sticking your ignorance out.
Atomic weight of H is 1.
Attomic weight of Oxygen is 16.
I do a little math here and find that 1 Oxygen atom is 8 times the size of 1 hydrogen molecule.
The shill describes that as "not much larger"
CNN911Fakes 17 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes - So, um...whar are they? It's been half an hour. My popcorn is getting cold.
Maybe they're on an emergency call to SMERSH again? :D
nameofthepen 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nameofthepen GeneralSmurf and kriset had to go smurf off.
Aeronauticalexplorer 16 hours ago
@CornFlakes
See I knew you were talking out of your ass. Since you were talking about *size* and not about *mass* then I'm pretty much correct, whereas you managed to throw away what little credibility you might have regained with your previous comment. A molecule of oxygen is 1.56 times the size of a molecule of water. Not 8 times, mongo.
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@GeneralSamov Get your dictionary out. See if you can find the difference between an atom and a molecule.
An atom of O has MW 16, A molecule (O2) has a MW of 32. An atom of H has a MW of 1. A molecule (H2) has a molecular weight of 2.
A molecule af water has a MW of 18. 32/18 is 1.778 meaning a molecule of O is 78% larger than a molecule of water. H20 is 56% (18/32) of the size of O2. That's not phi, disney.
Shill science and understanding; "they pay us to say this. What does it mean?"
CNN911Fakes 13 hours ago
@CornFlakes
We're definitely making progress, so I salute it for that. Notice how we already got from 8 times to 1.778 times. But we're still not quite there. You need one more step: you need to get the densities of both oxygen and water and in connection with Avogadro's number (to figure out the number of molecules/mol) finding the actual volume of a molecule.
GeneralSamov 5 hours ago
@GeneralSamov You know, you need to read your posts. You did one of your many "cover the front page" posts with your fellow shill saying that Oxygen was only slighty bigger than hydrogen. YOu had correctly broken the water molecule into 2 - a single oxygen atom and a single hydrogen molecule.
You also broke the oxygen molecule into 2 oxygen atoms. Then, because your associate was so wrong, you compared the unequal parts - one oxygen atom versus one hydrogen molecule. You were wrong. Read it.
CNN911Fakes 27 minutes ago
@GeneralSweetie - This just happened to be one you could comprehend.
But, you and your cohorts *still* haven't answered the question on the table.
nameofthepen 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nameofthepen they never can without pretending. they are only fooling themselves.
Aeronauticalexplorer 17 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aeronauticalexplorer - They're like watching a train wreck in slo mo. :D
nameofthepen 17 hours ago
@nameofthepenis
Did someone fart?
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@GeneralSweetie - Yes, but we forgive you. Just don't make it a habit, OK?
nameofthepen 15 hours ago
@nameofthepenis
Did you fart again?
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@GeneralSweetie - Smeller's the feller. You know that.
Now stop being a child, and get back to work. You've got a test coming up. ;-)
nameofthepen 15 hours ago
@nameofthepenis
Why do you keep farting? You should be more respective towards other people. Keep you mouth closed to prevent any further unfortunate mishappenings of that sort, that would be much appreciated.
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@GeneralSweetie - One handful of M&Ms = your brain fueled for a week.
nameofthepen 15 hours ago
@nameofthepenis
Well not really, but sugar sure helps. You should look into it, too, and consider lowering on the beans.
GeneralSamov 15 hours ago
@krisdevalle OK, krisdevalle, which is more valuable; 30 pennies or 1 dollar coin?
You should try to stop hi jacking conversations you are totally unprepared for.
The command module (had it actually been in space) had essentially zero per cent humidity. You need to see that, understand it and agree.
CNN911Fakes 17 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes So what if the life support system introduced water?
I still don't see what your point is?
You claim the craft is not watertight, but have no proof.
You claim it is at 0% humidity, but all extant documentation claims otherwise.
How would you go about proving your point?
krisdevalle 17 hours ago
@krisdevalle I certainly don't have to try to prove a negative. None of the materials used and the methods of construction of those matertials would stop water vapor.
You are welcome to prove otherwise.
You have not asserted a humidity level above 0, so that is all that is on the table - zero. Tell us what it might be and your source. Hope it is better than your water/hydrogen guffaw.
CNN911Fakes 15 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes I was doing some research about the JSC-1 (Lunar Simulant) that Jarrah White used to deflate the Mythbusters’ demo and proved that footprints couldn’t be made without moisture. Apparently, the JSC-1 was made in 1994 to replicate the same physical properties of lunar dust. It is just basaltic ash with high glass contents. Why did this simulant take almost 3 decades later to come out?
mrwonderfulman2011 15 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes I guess NASA thought this simulant would convince fools that the moon landing did occur because moon dust was collected and brought back to Earth, but why was there an earlier lunar simulant prior to the JSC-1? It was called MLS-1 which was manufactured from University of Minnesota and made from basaltic rock only.
mrwonderfulman2011 15 hours ago
@mrwonderfulman2011 Lewis Carroll wrote "through the looking glass" after "alice in wonderland"
Adding glass to the mix is exactly right for this fantasy and thus the right sequel.
If you watch ArcAngel4Myke's videos, you will find that the astroboughts used the word "glass" t refer to raindrops on their equipment. It rained often during the filming of the fantasy. A fair number of NASA photos show the rain.
CNN911Fakes 13 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes The Moon Bay was found in Google Earth out in area 51 where they had the outdoor studio Moonset. NASA was busted right there. But the shills insist on perpetuating the Moon Landings LIE anyway. They are a joke.
Aeronauticalexplorer 6 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes But all the technical documentation lists the humidity levels.
Today, in 2012, is the first time I've ever heard your claim. You are neither an aerospace engineer, nor are you an academic. The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you feel these numbers or listings are in error, then prove as such.
It is relatively easy to find out the numbers. which are much higher than your stated claim.
krisdevalle 15 hours ago
@krisdevalle Such a disinfo shill. I am seeking your number and why you think it is correct. I care not whether you are right or wrong as you don't know and you are not permitted to really know anyway; ignorant shoveling of disinfo excrement is much easier than out and out lying.
Tell us what the AA11 humidity was in their command module according to the official lie. Afterwards, tell us how much water a person needs per day and how much water the AA11 astroboughts carried with them.
Try!
CNN911Fakes 13 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes Why bother? Find the information yourself. It's out there, and you can find it the same way I did. Because you won't believe me if I tell you, that much is clear.
I'll give you a tip though - the fuel cells used on the craft generated water as a byproduct, which was also used as potable water.
krisdevalle 5 hours ago
@krisdevalle Ah, please? Pretty please? Tell us what you know! Please share your extensive research knowlege (like the relative size of O2 and H2O, guffaw) with us seekers.
What was the relative humidity inside the command module?
CNN911Fakes 32 minutes ago
@CNN911Fakes Never mind I found it:
ww w. scribd. com/doc/46941560/Apollo-Experience-Report-Command-and-Service-Module-Environmental-Control-System
Controlled the cabin humidity. You can search within the document for 'humidity' as a keyword.
krisdevalle 17 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes
"water molecule is much smaller than the oxygen molecule"
Is 1.56 times the size "much larger" now? Oh right, you were just talking out of your ass again. I'm amazed however that you correctly guessed which molecule has a bigger size.
GeneralSamov 17 hours ago
@CNN911Fakes - Ha ha! Exactly.
So, he finally bravely stepped forward with this statement: “If you can establish a precedent...then you may have a point. However it appears humidity levels are described separately to gas mix.”
I think if he had taken the hint word “anesthesiologist”, which I left in a comment a few days ago, he (or his bosses) wouldn't have his foot stuck in his mouth right now. :D
nameofthepen 18 hours ago
@nameofthepen "There are no accidents"
Kung Fu Panda
CNN911Fakes 17 hours ago
@CornFlakes
Why are you so keen in explaining your methods to everyone? I thought that if you were going to be intellectually dishonest, you should at least not be so blatantly obvious about it.
But yeah, your description of what you do here was pretty accurate. In fact, I doubt whether I've seen any real attempt at conducting a discussion from your side, and if you actually did get caught into one, you got either quickly dismantled or you weaseled out of it yourself. That's sad.
GeneralSamov 20 hours ago
@GeneralSweetie - Stepping up to tweak Superman's cape, are ya?
Fools rush in... :D
nameofthepen 18 hours ago
@nameofthepenis
lolwut
GeneralSamov 17 hours ago
The American cowboy scientist Neil Armstrong stated that he was photographing the sorda corolla when he was on the "moon" and I believe the other two cowboy scientists were also assist him with this important sorda corolla thing.I'm only a psychiatrist who used to assist the police to press charges to all kinds of criminals,and I must admit I have no idea about sorda corolla stuff. So naturally my question is,what in the name of fuck is the sorda corolla?
NASACrooks 21 hours ago
@NASACrookso - the Sorda Corolla is what Astro-NOTs drink after a long day of rounding up the maverick moonfroggies and stomping them to death .
It's hot, thirsty work, don'cha know? ;-)) /watch?v=wOBo8Afqha8
nameofthepen 20 hours ago
@NASACrooks That's the celestial event that they claim the specialized eauipment needed to see it was on the command module and did not travel to the fake moon bay surface with the astroboughts.
So, just another little mistake from the 3 stooges in addition to not knowing what it was (do you like soda corollas, getting caught in the rain?)
CNN911Fakes 20 hours ago
LOL!! Bugs (not buggies) on the moon: /watch?v=Yb3xrKvUVTo#t=1m12s
nameofthepen 22 hours ago
hoaxers are the real scum of earth
tomanyasses 22 hours ago
This is footage of the actual first Moon landing of 1969.
norjop 1 day ago
Hoaxtards are giving Hollywood way too much credit.
norjop 1 day ago
Hey is this video true or false i have heard many things?
ChrisBravoE 1 day ago
@ChrisBravoE - Here's something to consider: /watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen, I don't consider it long. It doesn't explain full 360 degree video pans shot several times during the Apollo program. It doesn't explain film shot from the lunar rover as it covers 1/2 mile of terrain. It doesn't explain how none of Kubrick's films look the 100 hours of Apollo video. It also doesn't explain how his whereabouts are accounted for at that time. It doesn't explain how lunar mountain range profiles then, match perfectly those seen in modern, 3D mapping.
LunarTuner 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The pictures of the americans holding their flag on the moon are a big fake just like a fantasy-film.
First Fake Moon landing 1969 with proof looking this video
Check the Flag in Second 20 and 27... and find the Mistake in the Video.
news778 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The pictures of the americans holding their flag on the moon are a big fake just like a fantasy-film.
First Fake Moon landing 1969 with proof looking this video
Check the Flag in Second 20 and 27... and find the Mistake in the Video.
news778 1 day ago
everything ppl bring up can be explained, anyone who says otherwise hasn't done any research and only want to believe it because they are afraid that if the usa did something like this then they might try to do something else even more awsome
cooljwj 1 day ago
@cooljwj - You think people are afraid of a "more awsome" [sic] movie?
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen its not a movie and there is no evidince to support that is it fake
cooljwj 1 day ago
@cooljwj - It's a total movie. That's what Hollywood is there for.
Please watch the link I just left for ChrisBravoE. I'd love to hear your opinion. Thanks.
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen well if you can't prove its a movie then the only other possiblity is that it is real, all the facts support it being real, name one that doesn't support it being real
cooljwj 1 day ago
@cooljwj - Nothing supports the moonwalk hoax either. :-)
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@cooljwj - Not going there with you. Watch your TV. You deserve it. ;-)
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen yes there is things that support it like videos and reports along with photos, so yes there are a ton of things that support it, there is however no real proof that supports anything to suggest that it is fake, also i dont have a tv (cries) friend crushed it with a bat while playing in the house
cooljwj 21 hours ago
They never really walked on the Moon. It has already been proven. This video was recorded in a studio.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
It has already been proven you still wear diapers. Actually, I think I heard your mommy calling you, it's time to change them.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer, wouldn't we be stupid to believe this was done in a studio when no one has shown us photos or video of the studio, hoax theorists can't agree on where they studio was, there is no documentation or testimony & it would require such a gigantic, column-less building that doesn't exist? Wouldn't we be idiots to believe something with no substantiation whatsoever. Sorry, but I won't believe something just because you can imagine it.
LunarTuner 1 day ago
@CornFlakes
Nice to see the stoned old man keeping silent most of the time, and just randomly complaining about his cold tea and hurting knees here and there. After all, we don't want to send you to the retirement home just yet...
Besides, in a whole weekend you could have done a quick check yourself, had you been interested, you lazy old incontinent fuck.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
Gosh, it has been a whole weekend and the shills have not told us about the humidity in the command module.
C'mon boys and girls, 60% oxygen, 40% inert gas of some kind and that makes 100% leaving no room for any water vapor, meaning 0% relative humidity.
Did I get that right?
CNN911Fakes 1 day ago
Comment removed
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@DecayedOfferings, you have just said nothing. So, your grandfather knows an astronaut. That doesn't nullify the scientific data from 9 trips to the moon. Until you can give a name and put words into quotation marks from this astronaut, you offer nothing but hearsay.
LunarTuner 1 day ago
Have you guys heard that NASA have declared The so-called Apollo landing sites, for no fly zone ? man you got to be kidding, you Moon landers are laughable, totally pathetic.
kennjohnsen 1 day ago
@kennjohnsen
Lucky I never landed on the Moon. I bet you complain a lot when you visit a museum and find a rope or tape in front of you, signifying you're not allowed to get any nearer to the subject than that. I bet you also complain about other irrelevant and completely minimal stuff, like for example having to pay when you board a bus, or not being allowed into area 51 (OH NOES!!)
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
how come in this video we can see through the astronaut?
nikzad92 1 day ago
@nikzad92 - Because he's really just a figment of our imaginations. ;-)
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nikzad92
Because it's fake.
NASACrooks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol, I just saw the Jarrah White "philwebb59 is stalking me, omg oh noes!!11" video. So pathetic it's hilarious. What a farce...
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
Comment removed
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
Anyone who says the Russians Tracked NASA all the way to the Moon is a LIAR.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Here's some more:
Soviet Deep-Space Communication Centers
In 1959, work began on a massive facility designed to communicate with spacecraft sent to Mars and Venus.
and the link:
ww w. mentallandscape. com/V_Telemetry. htm
krisdevalle 1 day ago
Ha ha...the famous "Apollo Lens Flare Excuse". A classic.
Sometimes it looks like wires, and sometimes, it looks like frogs. :D
nameofthepen 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aeronauticalexplorer
No it doesn't. David Percy is a proven liar, and if you're going to endorse his claims you're a liar too. The "jump salute" video that he shows wasn't sped up enough. Jarrah White then made the same "mistake" as Percy, i.e. playing the footage at 150% speed to get it to double the original speed. Of course, landing believers aren't retards like the liars Percy and JW, so the mistake was quickly spotted and JW was ridiculed for it long afterwards.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
moon landing? i dont belive this shit!
CLICk000000000000 1 day ago
@CLICk000000000000 lol! Me neither.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
One lie from man, that a lot of people still believe
2thinkabout 1 day ago
@2thinkabout The number of people whom still believe it is shrinking due to examination of the evidence.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
I was photographing the sorta corolla and I saw no stars.
NASACrooks 1 day ago
@NASACrooks - but did you manage to get some real REGOLITH???
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen
No regolith. I only got some cornercubes sporadically here and there .The rest was sorda corolla and jump saluting.
NASACrooks 1 day ago
@NASACrooks - Well, fail! We'll have to send you back again.
But, don't worry - we've *almost* got it down pat by now.
nameofthepen 1 day ago
They never walked on the Moon. Just videos recorded on Earth and a lie.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer no its not a lie, with almost any high powered space telescope you can see the landing spot, look for hobble and moon landing spot photos, just because people think its not true doesn't mean its not true
cooljwj 1 day ago
@cooljwj - And, just because people think it's true doesn't mean it's true.
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen No, but the amount of evidence to support the reality of the moonlandings is.
Plus there is that odd consistency that people who believe in the hoax do not come from a scientific, engineering or academic background.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Do you see any drawbacks in the Mythbusters demonstration Kris? I would just like to see the flip side of this coin. You mention over and over again how Jarrah White used his bedroom to show how lunar simulant collapses in on itself whenever he takes a step into the soil, but what do you think about the Mythbusters' demonstration? Are there any flaws there?
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@mrwonderfulman2011 - You'll probably just be accused of being genetically unfit to receive an answer to this question.
That seems to be the week-end, skeleton-crew tactic.
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@mrdreadfultard2011
And, just because tards think it's not true doesn't mean it's not true.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@mrwonderfulman2011 You never answered my question sufficiently, or at all, really.
This is the one very, very important fact that none of your seem to want to, or be able to answer.
If NASA never went to the moon, then what is the lunar simulant simulating?
If you can answer this, then perhaps we can progress.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle It is supposed to simulate the Moon sand, genius. NASA sells it. Why don't they sell the real shit if they really shoveled 800lbs of it in their "space ship"? Where the fuck is it all?
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer How do they simulate the 'moon sand' if they never went there, as you say?
None of you seem to be able to get across that one. It's pretty funny.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle You need to look up the word -supposed- you illiterate fuck. LOL and you are an Aussie. English is your language so don't even try it.
I said its supposed to simulate the Moon sand. I didn't say it does idiot. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Oh. So I guess that makes the experiment worthless.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Yes it does. Jarrah White wasted 300$ on fake moon sand and Mythbusters conducted their experiment in falsehood with a predetermined outcome. Both in Earth's gravity. So what do they prove? Nothing. But what is notable is that there are such vivid footprints in the NASA photos but in the videos they collapse just like Jarrah White's did. More over, they were able to make footprints but nothing from the exahust gas blowing gas onto the loose moon sand. That just does not add up.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer You said 'I said its supposed to simulate the Moon sand. I didn't say it does'
So how would this experiment prove anything then?
Of course I am more inclined to believe comprehensive soil mechanic results from Surveyor:
ntrs. nasa. gov/archive/nasa/casi. ntrs. nasa. gov/19690027073_1969027073. pdf
Than you, fapping on about crap you don't understand.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle You obviously don't understand my comment. I said the Mythbusters experiment was a predetermined outcome and Jarrah White wasted $300 on the fake moon sand sold to him by NASA and that both experiments prove Nothing. So you are not making any sense. A usual occurrence.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Both experiments prove nothing?
Ok then.
I guess we should simply use the rest of the evidence that supports the lunar landings. You know, photos, film, Soviet deep space tracking, pro and amateer astronomer photos and witnessing, eyewitnesss viewing the Saturn launches, interception of radio communications, geologists worldwide confirming moonrock, LRO pix, Kaguya images, et cetera.
Whaddya got? Something something dust?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle But we went over all of that already recently. You act like we never did. Soviet deep space tracking is a lie. They could't even track their own craft. They relied on a NASA network etc. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the NASA moonlandigs claim.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Lying about things is not going to help.
As can be seen here:
ww w. russianspaceweb. com/kik. html
Deep space tracking was in place by 1962 to support their lunar exploration program.
Seriously - why should I take your word for it? It is clearly in error.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Why should I believe your bias link? I go by facts not any bullshit website. Especially one from you. LOL
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer What facts?
You just made up some guff about the USSR relying on the NASA network.
what's your source?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle They relied on Jodrell Bank which is a NASA and British network to track their craft because they had not the capabilities. This is well known outside of the moonlandings argument. So to say that the USSR Soviets Russians tracked Apollo to the Moon is a Bald Face LIE!
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer What are your sources?
List them here.
To show you are not lying.
Because I know you are.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics is my source. You are a LIAR
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Oh I see, you have gotten mixed up.
Jodrell tracked a few of the Soviet probes, sure. But not FOR the USSR.
I was just googling for the information, and you're just confused.
Good try though. However, as I maintain, if you wish to prove that Jodrell Bank tracked the Soviet probes because there was no Soviet deep space tracking, then supply a link.
Can't be that hard? I mean, if you're so right! Unless... unless... you're wrong?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Okay Kris, let's talk about the JSC-1? It was manufactured in 94 to approximate the chemical, mechanical, and engineering properties of lunar dust. It is a basaltic ash with a high glass content. What does this prove? That NASA had to have gone all the way to the moon to replicate lunar soil here on earth? That's probably what they want people to think after manufacturing this product. The MLS-1 was an earlier lunar soil made from basaltic rock.
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer And another one:
In a letter to Dryden dated 23 July 1963, Lovell described his visit: During this time I was taken to the major Soviet optical and radio observatories and to the deep space tracking network, a station which has not so far been seen by Western eyes
the link:
/history. nasa. gov/SP-4209/ch2-4. htm
Still waiting on your proof.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Either way, both simulants were manufactured differently. This leads me to believe that we don’t know what real lunar soil is because we don’t have any here on earth because no human ever went to the moon to get any. Simple stuff Kris!
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@krisdevalle In any case, Jarrah White used the JSC-1 to do an experiment where he took one giant leap for mankind into the soil and very sadly could not replicate the footprint that the famous Buzzy Aldrin had made way, way back in the days of yore. I am convinced that the moon landing did not happen Kris. No one wants to believe it's fake, but it is and the truth will unfold in the future. Certainly not any time soon Kris because we are not ready to explore the moon surface yet.
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@mrwonderfulman2011 So if the lunar simulant was not real lunar soil, how does this make the experiment accurate?
He used something unlike the lunar soil to prove you can't put a footprint in the lunar soil?
That simply does not make sense. Explain to me how that is a logical experiment?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Consider these two possibilities Kris. First, NASA never went to the moon and therefore the lunar stimulant has no relevance to real lunar soil in terms of its chemical and mineral properties. Second, NASA sends Jarrah White what they call a "JSC-1 simulant" which in any case could not replicate the Buzz Aldrin footprint because the dust collapses in on itself. Both events conclude no moon landing Kris. Not hard to figure out?
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@mrfulofshitman
Great logic on your last comment there.
Maybe you shoul think about that one more time . LOL
COMMOGSE 1 day ago
@mrwonderfulman2011
Oh fuck that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, why do all hoaxers have the logic of small children?
Your whole argument is retarded.
Blahblobify 1 day ago
@Blahblobify
This was a retarded comment.
kennjohnsen 1 day ago
@mrwonderfulman2011 Or third, the simulant does not completely mimic the properties of the soil so it's difficult to keep an imprint in it unless you were in an airless, 1/6 gravity environment.
This scenario is just as plausible as the others, unless you were being intellectually dishonest.
krisdevalle 22 hours ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
He "wasted" 300 bucks? Think again. That was an expense. He clearly made more than enough in revenues from selling his merchandise. Economy 101.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@GeneralSamov I didn't know Jarrah White sold merchandise. I still don't.lol
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
Heh, nameofthepenis also doesn't. You'll have to get used to the idea that he does. And he makes money off of tards like you that buy into his bullshit. Those $300 he just earned selling lies around, like all the other propagandists, like Percy, Sibrel, Jack white, the late Kaysing and Rene and so on and so forth. Open your eyes.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@GeneralSweetie - I don't think Jarrah sells merchandise.
Do you? (waggles eyebrows lasciviously)
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepenis
You're so cute. Pity you're also painfully wrong about 95% of the time. Like now.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@GeneralSweetie - (waggle, waggle waggle) ;-)
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@GeneralSamov Well, I am sure you're not bad yourself either Sunshine! :) I am sure you're not as handsome as Kris though! He's hard to beat I'm afraid especially with that cute little hat!
mrwonderfulman2011 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
And let's not even lose time on the "wire reflections" Percy seems so sure he's seeing. Probably as much as CornFlakes believes he's seeing frogs (that is not at all, in case you're wondering). The first reflection is obviously lens flare, as otherwise the "wire" would be going upwards diagonally, as opposed to how wire support should go, straight up vertically. The second one is even more laughable, as it's obviously damaged film (irregular shape).
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@GeneralSamov So you are claiming it is diagonal when it is clearly vertical. Yawn zzzz
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
What is clear is you're a retarded liar. take a screenshot an draw a line from the astronaut's back of the head and through the reflection. It's inclined at least 10 degrees clockwise. I took a screenshot myself and drew the lines, and I still got it on my computer. I might even host it on tinypic or something, but then again, what's the use. Thick skulls don't go hand in hand with clarity of vision, objectivity and impartiality.
GeneralSamov 1 day ago
@GeneralSamov 10 degrees is not much. Wire rigs can go way more than that. There is tension on the wire cables. I have used rigs similar to what NASA used. They don't have to be perfectly vertical at all times. When they are pulled in one direction they will go diagonal until it slides on the track to catch up. You are not mechanically inclined.. so whats the use. You are also too dumb to understand anything that requires a tiny bit of intelligence.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer - Ha haaaa....
Have you noticed a certain hatman here having a giant fail trying to play the same Cat-and-Mouse game which CNN911Fakes does so very, very well?
Oh, well...they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :D
nameofthepen 1 day ago
@nameofthepen CNN destroys the hat boy every time.
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@nameofthepen Hey buddy, every time you talk about me, that's a win for me.
It means you're not dribbling shit about the moon landings and wasting your time on me.
Yay! Winning. Hey, say something about my hat. That's important!
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@krisdevalle Um no kris. You are being made fun of you moron. lol!!
Aeronauticalexplorer 1 day ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer I'll let you know when something works.
krisdevalle 1 day ago