Apollo 17 Lunar Orbit rendezvous

[sardoniclysane]

Ximsist? Oh where have you gone?

[sardoniclysane]

I'm still waiting Xismxist...what is your newest excuse?

[sardoniclysane]

And what happened to believing Kasying? Have you finally realized he was not an engineer but a librarian?

[sardoniclysane]

That is the person you put your stock in? If you follow along his own timeline, his own achievments (which mysteriously can't be verified) don't add up. This is whom you put your trust in, as opposed to the rest of the scientific community? I can't say I'm surprised.

[sardoniclysane]

Oh, the Bill Wood who was proven to have been lacking in even understanding the very basics in several scientific fields? The one who made a single speech in 1996, never showed the math behind his false claims, the Bill Wood who worked with Kaysing on his book (pp 138-139)? Note "that" Bill Wood claimed to have been published in several scientific journals, yet no one found a single article by him.

[Synthetrix]

NVP = bowel movement where his brain should be.

[curea229]

"New world order those nazis lie about everything..."

How old are you exactly?

[Rob260259]

@curea229

Try to ignore this idiot. His 'new' name is 'Nasafakedit'.



[curea229]

@Rob260259 No kidding, it's the same crazy guy?

Hey I like your vids. Can't beat Apollo & Monica Bellucci!

[ApolloWasReal]

This film is swapped left-right, as in a mirror image. The LM is asymmetric; its ascent fuel tank sticks farther out than the heavier oxidizer tank. It should be on the LM crew's left. The steerable S-band antenna should be on their right.

For some reason I see a lot of Apollo footage that's swapped like this.

[thermodynamicsishard]

The exact kind of engines they used in 2001 space oddyssey - fake ones!

[sardoniclysane]

Care to explain how you came up with this conclusion?

[jerryaltman]

I always wanted to know how such compact small module, now without the lower section that had the landing engine, could take orbit so easily, if it has almost no area for "take oof engines"./

I know that Moon have a 1/6 of Earth's gravity, but even so seens strange.

What kind of engine the lunar module had to take off and reach orbit?

[ApolloWasReal]

The relationship between planet gravity and rocket size to reach orbit is exponential, not linear. In the lower lunar gravity, the LM ascent rocket could be MUCH smaller than 1/6 the size of the Saturn V needed to reach earth orbit.

All of the Apollo spacecraft rockets were hypergolic, burning nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer and either MMH or Aerozine-50, various chemical forms of hydrazine. They have invisible plumes in a vacuum.

[Doctor699]

@ApolloWasReal still, you don't want to get your hand caught under them!

[ApolloWasReal]

@Doctor699 Absolutely not!

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal No, the exhaust can never be invisible from a rocket engine. VACUUM is whats invisible/transparent - everything IN IT will be VISIBLE, but not in this case LMAO. PROVEN FAKE

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist So you've been in space and can be a first-hand witness? I thought not. There are any number of videos and films of rocket engines burning in space with invisible plumes: Apollo, Delta, Falcon, Shuttle. So it would seem that hard evidence contradicts your claim.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal No, rocket plumes can never be invisible what part of that did you not understand? if you find such thing, its a proven fake. I wouldnt trust NASA for 1 sec.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There's plenty of footage showing rocket plumes (or the absence of them) in space, and many people on the ground have watched plumes diverge and become invisible as launchers ascend through the thinning air. I take it you're too young to have seen a Saturn V launch, but what about a shuttle launch? Haven't you noticed how the main engine plumes are practically invisible even at the surface? You see a glow inside the engines. That's it.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal "practically invisible" isnt totaly invisible, and isnt good enough... since totaly invisible is the case with the LM - CSM docking, and is impossible and therefore a proven fake

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Your best bet is to find footage of a Gemini launch (Titan II) or Ariane 1-4 without SRBs. Unlike most of today's rockets, their first stages used hypergolic fuels just like the Apollo LM and CSM. Their plumes are practically invisible even near the surface; you can see right through them. In vacuum they spread out much more quickly and became almost completely invisible except for a startup transient.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal There's no such thing as invisible rocket plumes, here /watch?v=zsJpUCWfyPE Shuttle launch, at 1 min 48s before it starts to rotate we can clearly see the plumes against the blue sky... and this from an engine that used same kinda fuel as the LM. On moon with its vacuum and black sky, it should been WAY more noticable but that was never the case LOL.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist No, Apollo and Shuttle main engines do NOT burn the same fuels. Shuttle burns H2/O2, Apollo burns hypergols. And at 1:48 it's still at sea level pressure. As air pressure falls, plumes mushroom dramatically, becoming even harder to see. You can still see a glow inside the engine nozzles (e.g., shuttle engines, A17 ascent) and startup clouds from unburned propellants, but mainstage hypergol plumes are practically invisible. Also see TV footage from any hypergolic Delta upper stage.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal SHUTUP! not same kinda fuel then your even in more problem here! "practically invisible" isnt good enough... and i prefer to trust Bill Kaysing rather than a TROLL like you, since he worked at rocketdyne and said the LM's exhaust plume should been DARK RED.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist So you just get rude when you're confronted with facts you can't dispute? The Titan II that launched Gemini was hypergolic in both stages, so MANY people have witnessed hypergolic engine firings and can tell you what their plumes look like. There's an orange cloud of unreacted oxidizer at ignition, but the mainstage plume is very faint even in air. In vacuum, it's simply invisible. I say again: see video from any Delta 2nd stage camera. If you use Kaysing as a source, you're crazy.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Here's another Delta II launcher camera: watch?v=wzXKeOn3R1I This one is from KSC but the rocket and imagery are the same. Aside from the little orange burst at ignition (which we also see on LM ascents) the hypergolic plume is COMPLETELY invisible.

So once again, we see that you're simply wrong.

You really should stop taking Bill Kaysing on faith and consult some more reliable sources.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Here's the first clip I meant to sent you: watch?v=IvB-8CWw9eU It's another Delta II taking off from Vandenberg AFB. The Delta II upper stage is hypergolic just like all the Apollo CSM and LM engines. Except for a little ignition cloud, the hypergolic engine plume is completely invisible in a vacuum!

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist By the way, Bill Kaysing may have worked at Rocketdyne, but he left before Apollo really even got going. And he was a LIBRARIAN, not an engineer.

It's obvious from Kaysing's own public statements that he didn't really believe Apollo was faked. He hated the US government, and a friend suggested saying something totally outrageous like "the Apollo program was faked". Kaysing turned the idea into his livelihood, making money from gullible idiots like you.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal HAHA YOUR FUCKING LIAR! Kaysing was an engineer. U can read it urself in this video /watch?v=oyzlZkTwYRo His hate against the gouverment had nothing to do with this, and when he left Rocketdyne NASA had almost everything done... nothing changed, why would it change because of he left? rocket and engines was still the same and already complete and in order to use so when Kaysing left in 1963, that was the same hardware NASA would use during apollo.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist NASA had almost everything done in 1963 -- that's a joke, right?

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal "Almost" was wrong. I should have said EVERYTHING. Tell me what was changed in rocket technology from 1963 to 1969 in NASA's point of view, tell me how all the Saturn V engines(which there all was already made 1960-62) was changed till 1969. What did they change?!?!? The only thing that was changed was the NAME, C5 was renamed Saturn V, and C5 was build already back 1963 so you LOSE AGAN, your nothing but a LIAR.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Actually, there was an enormous amount of progress in rocket engineering between 1963 and 1969. But that's beside the point. You asserted that there's no such thing as a rocket engine with an invisible plume, apparently in support of your contention that the LM ascent videos were faked. I've shown you several videos of rockets firing, in vacuum, with the same propellants, where the plumes are invisible. Your claim is therefore proved wrong, your absurd ad hominems notwithstanding.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Did I miss something? I can't find a single response from you that actually addresses the Delta II footage I sent you. Look at it. Tell me you can see brilliant plumes from those hypergolic second stages.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal the "librarian" claims comes originaly from the pedophile phil plait and also from the baby look alike jay windley - both retards and ofcourse YOU would believe them it makes sense since they're both proven LIARS (like u)

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist So now you're adding ad-hoc attacks on other sources to your personal attacks on me, eh? You must realize just how weak your argument really is.

Sorry, but none of that changes the fact that Kaysing was no engineer. (I, on the other hand, am one.) Not only have you shown no evidence to support any of your claims, it's obvious just from listening to the man that he was utterly clueless and making it all up as he went along.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Kaysing WAS a engineer your fucking retard wanna be, Jarrah proved that in the videolink i gave you so stop being a liar like your idols, plait and windley

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Just out of curiosity, at what accredited university did Kaysing get his engineering degree? In which aerospace engineering firms did he work as a member of the technical staff? Where "engineer" means a formally trained engineer, not an administrative support person or junior assistant technician?

The issue here is the truth or falsity of your claim about invisible rocket plumes, but since you brought up the issue of Kaysing's education I'd like to resolve it.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal How wold I know that?! ask ROCKETDYNE? at what accredited university did YOU get your engineering degree? (thats right, u dont have any) so i prefer to listen to Kaysing instead

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Well, you seem to place a very great deal of weight on what Kaysing said as though he was some sort of authority. Since you concede your own lack of a formal background from which to make an independent determination, I assumed you'd checked out his credentials.

I mean, I simply can't imagine you'd even *think* you'd prefer to listen to Kaysing just because he says what you want to hear, right?

Where did I get my engineering degrees? Cornell and CMU. Happy?

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Windley also claimed himself to be an engineer yet that TROLL compared the LM to a Boeing 747(!) to explain why the LM didnt left any blast crater on the moon... Rene and Kaysing would never make such an stupid comparison.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Except that Windley *IS* an engineer, with both a degree and lots of industrial experience. I am not familiar with his LM/747 comparison, but it seems like a reasonable one -- both the 747 and the LM descent engine produce a lot of hot gas, yet neither dig craters in the ground.

But what does this have to do with the visibility of rocket plumes? Are you still maintaining that you can see a continuous plume from that Delta upper stage? Why not - you imagine a lot of things.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal You just proved yourself that you arent, like him, a engineer either, You are a wannabe joke who dont understand a shit. Every normal human will realize that a Boeing take off horizontal which isnt the case with the LM(who take off vertical, just in case u didnt know, which u didnt...) still, a Boeing 747 will rip up the runway if the engines are at full throttle a little too long, then take in mind that those runways are specialy designed to withstand those pressures...

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Once again I ask: are you going to talk about the (in)visibility of hypergolic rocket plumes in a vacuum, or are you going to keep trying to bait me into irrelevant diversions?

FWIW, I do note that 747 engines do not produce visible plumes unless they're seriously malfunctioning.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Its not irrelevant because this is the piece of crap you listen to... who cares about invisible or visible plumes coming from a 747?! it was the COMPARISON Windley made that is laughable, since neither you or him took in mind that LM is take off vertical, and YOU guys call your self engineers (LMFAO) BOEING 747 IS FFS STARTING ON A RUNWAY AND THATS HORIZONTAL (can i be more specific?!) i already told you that the exhaust plumes in your links can be visible - EOD

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Seems to me you're backed into a corner and you know it. Your increasing use of capital letters and well-poisoning attempts belies an increasing desperation. But you can't get out of this one. I can see with my own eyes that Delta upper stage plumes are invisible, and so can you.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist I'm still waiting for you to return to the original issue: visibility of hypergolic rocket plumes in a vacuum. Now that you've seen several videos clearly disproving your original contention ("no such thing as an invisible rocket plume") I can only assume that your ad hominem attacks on Plait et al were a diversion from an argument you know you're losing.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Since all your crap originally is coming from Plait & Windley (same kinda lame excuses) i have every reason to bring it up! i already gave you a video of a Saturn S4B seperation and we can clearly see dark red plumes, and in your videos we can still see the plumes, barely, but we can see them so they're not invisible like you clam, so stop being a LIAR. IM not losing anything here and the reason for that is the fact that you canot prove that the moon landings were real

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Who says my "crap is coming from Plait and Windley"? I'm quite able to work things out for myself, thank you very much.

We're not talking about S-IVB separation, so stop trying to change the subject. You claimed the lack of a visible plume in the Apollo ascent videos proves they were faked. But I've shown you Delta upper stage videos in which the mainstage plume is also invisible. And we see the very same ignition transients. It couldn't be clearer that the Apollo videos are genuine.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Even IF(yeah a huge IF) the exhaust plumes were invisible the laughable robotic motion of the LM when its docking proves its a fake, like it is a model and is being turned around with magnets, its motion start and stops to quickly. Shuttle never acting like this....

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist First of all, you're seeing a film recorded at a slow rate, 6 fps I think. Second, the depleted LM had far lower moments of inertia than the shuttle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what's shown in these films, and if you actually knew anything about either Apollo or the underlying physics and engineering you'd know this.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Referring to the Saturn S-IVB pulling away from a Saturn IB, we first see three solid-fueled ullage rockets whose plumes are visible in a vacuum because of solid combustion products like aluminum oxide. But after an initial ignition transient, the H2/O2 engine produces a completely invisible plume. All we can see is a glow inside the nozzle, just as I've been saying for days. But the S-IVB isn't relevant to the hypergolic engines on Apollo.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal When nitrogen tetroxide mixes with aerozine 50 (the LM fuel) it creates a dark red exhaust plume, according to Bill kaysing. I have heard similar from alot of ppl but totaly different from some others(like u and a few others)

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Well, what can I say? Bill Kaysing is simply wrong. You've now seen films of hypergolic rockets operating in vacuum, so you already know they have invisible plumes. And you can watch any film of a Titan II, Ariane 1-4 or Proton launch to see how hypergolic plumes look in an atmosphere. They show red clouds of unreacted N2O4 oxidizer that disappear when combustion stabilizes. But you've stuck your nose so far up his butt that your eyes can't see just how wrong he is.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal No he isnt wrong, I prefer to still trust Kaysing, after all he worked as an engineer at Rockeydyne and was involded in the engines that would later become Saturn V. Even if you know alot you still dont have his knowledge, easy as that.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Wow. I've run into a lot of pig-headed people on Youtube, but you're easily among the most extreme. Maintaining that Kaysing was an engineer when every bit of available evidence says the man was a librarian who knew little and left before Apollo really even got started. Repeating claims contrary not just to a vast body of published information but also to basic physical principles and even to common sense. I'm continually amazed at the human capacity for profound self-deception.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal And you still prove yourself to be that proven LIAR by continue listen to proven liars like Plait and Windley.... the librarian claims comes originaly from these trolls, and Jarrah proved them totaly wrong and i already gave you the video. Like i already told you(repeating is only necessary when u never get it) Saturn V was already build in 1963 when Kaysing left Rocketdyne so if anyone knew, he did. What will your next excuse be?



[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist The Saturn V was already built in 1963? Really? Then why did it take another 4 years to fly for the first time? Why were there so many static firings of all three stages in that time?

Kaysing had a BA in English. An English degree is wholly inadequate for a professional engineering position. If he had an engineering degree, then prove it. Oh, you can't? Why am I not surprised?

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Why would they launch Saturn V when no lander or csm was fully developed yet? Rocketdyne was under a NASA contract, you have to contact them for more details. If you do some research, the rocket that would become Saturn V was indeed build in 1963(yes they only changed its name) and some of its engine was already built and tested before 1960

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist The story so far: you asserted that no rocket has an invisible plume, ergo the LM ascent footage was fake. After being shown films of hypergolic engines firing in space with no visible plumes, you merely repeated your assertion, gratuitously libeled a few people who aren't even in this discussion, and repeated other provably false claims of an uneducated, incompetent crackpot. And you think *I* need some sort of excuse?

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasFaked You seem to have a problem with personal opinions, but your so-called obvious facts could be altered as well to coverup more lies. You and I can't really go into space to really dispute these claims, so scientifically we are parked on whether it is fact or fiction. So now what? We go off of common sense and I'm not picking or trolling, I'm pretty young, but I'm not stupid. I want to believe that this is real, but how could I when the obvious gyp distractions are evident...?

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but NOT their own facts. And Apollo is a fact.

Didn't you study math and science in school? Can't you apply what you learned to what we see in the Apollo footage, photographs and reports? I've done just that, with an engineering background as well, yet I don't see a single "obvious gyp distraction". Just a lot of misconceptions from people who misapply their earthbound intuition to space, a place they've never been.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal A fact doesn't belongs to one individual it belongs to everyone, Apollo is not everyone in conclusion. I am in school, if my studies aren't of professional prepositions as you expressed it, then common sense is the fulcrum of this debate. All that engineering background is now obsolete, because you too has never been in space outside of your mind. Without government/NASA reports, what makes this moon landing a FACT from our earth perspective? Thread your own needle on this...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper In actual fact, I do have personal experience with space. I haven't been there, but I have helped build and operate several small satellites in space. So at least I know personally that space is real.

The laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. You can apply them to the NASA record and see for yourself that it's self-consistent.

Basically, denying the reality of Apollo is just plain silly.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal I'm not going to deny that you had personal experience with space, you seem pretty passionate about it, I can respect that. I don't agree that the laws of physics apply to space as a whole, not to mention that we haven't explored the whole space. Plus it doesn't apply to earth as a whole. What is done on the other side of the world, in the skies, on the ground, in the water and in our bodies is different. When we can't find the answers, we look to the wild, life simple answers...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper So what reason do you have to argue that the laws of physics don't apply in space? If you studied science in school you should remember that physical laws are universal -- they apply everywhere in the universe and do not change over time. No one has ever observed otherwise. A thrown ball on the earth follows a parabolic arc. So does a thrown ball on the moon, even though the accelerations are different, because the physical laws are the same. Only the parameters are different.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal I forget to write "THE SAME" words are limited here and I forget to put it in there, that was a very important mistake, lol! If you read the rest of that statement you would see I meant just that. Life is scientific in every way, I can't deny that by any means... I was only saying, we haven't explored the universe enough to say it is the same as our solar system and or surrounding celestial bodies. Science is endless, the laws are the same, but things change and so do we...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper Everywhere we look, we see overwhelming evidence that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. E.g., we see the same spectral lines in stars millions of light years away that we do in the laboratory (except for Doppler shift, of course). While we're still working on the modifications necessary to make them work under extreme conditions like those in a black hole, we already have a pretty good handle on what those laws are everywhere else, including the moon.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal I feel you, but I'm just saying, the universe is endless, right? So how could you say you explored it all or know the length of science when it never ends or earth or in the endless universe. Think about that for a minute...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper Actually, it's been known for a long time that the universe is NOT infinite; look up "Olber's Paradox". More recently we've determined that it's about 13 billion light-years across (and the universe is about 13 billion years old). But the point is that everywhere we look we see strong confirming evidence, as in spectral lines, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and no evidence to the contrary. Could it still happen? Sure. But not likely.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal There is absolutely no evidence that the universe has limits, just speculations. One scientist perspective is not the right answer or the big discovery. I'm still in school and very big on science and I've never heard anything to the contrary, but mere speculation and opinions/theories. When it comes down to science, you can't just run with it. The laws of physics under water is not the same on land, that's what I was implying. In a weightless environment, there is a difference.

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper What are you saying? There's plenty of evidence that the universe is finite; you just don't know what it is. Olber pointed out centuries ago that if the universe were infinite and filled uniformly with stars, the night sky would be bright white because in every direction you looked you'd eventually come to a star. That the night sky is black proves that the universe is finite (though huge) with a finite number of stars.

The laws of physics are no different under water.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal No, the point I'm trying to make is, NO ONE KNOWS... We haven't even unlocked all the mysteries of planet earth, what are you doing in space? You have never been there so you can't really speak on it as being completed. They tried sending ordinary people into space and guess what? The government blew them up. There are voids in the universe that our telescopes cannot transfer. Water? How deep have we ventured under water? Keep exploring the deep and you may change your answer...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper We may not know everything but only a solipsist will argue that we don't have a pretty good handle on the basic physical laws governing ordinary human experience. As for not knowing how things work in space, speak for yourself; I have been involved in several satellite projects. Every one worked in space just as on the ground. Don't confuse the different *conditions* under water or in space for different physical *laws*.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal Are you suggesting that I am depicted as a solipsist just because I'm in reference to opinionated common sense? Like I said and you concluded, you have never been in space so what's there to dispute? The proof is only what they say and that's not enough for me or you, that is why we are debating. Basic science is not confusing and laws have flaws and time can cause that. Scientist makes new discoveries and mistakes everyday, especially when they speculate, which is all the time.

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper Re-read what I said. I may not have been physically in space but I can still look up with a telescope. I can interpret the information sent back by spacecraft. There is no evidence --NONE-- from astronomical observations or spacecraft indicating that physical laws are different in space than on earth.

Stop playing this "I don't know anything but you don't either, so we're even" game. Some people DO know more than you. They're called scientists. Study and you can become one.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal Ok fine, now we are down to earth, no more dumb games. A telescope is only a minimum observation that could turn into an opinion, you have to put your hand in it and or on it, right? I may be young, but you don't need a degree to be a scientist, you just have to have the heart to explore, experiment, execute and question infiltrated facts and bogus opinions instead of settling for an answer just because it's out of reach. A telescope is just a guest not the resident or owner...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper You seem to think that scientific theories are mere personal opinions so yours are equally valid. Wrong. Science is a time-tested process by which we deduce the rules governing the physical universe through empirical evidence, not personal opinions. E.g., we can hook a spectrograph to a telescope and see what a distant star is made of without actually going there. If you disagree, provide evidence for your position. Not handwaving.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Lets see, you dont believe NASA was able to send a unmanned LM to the moon yet Soviets send 2 lunochods and took home some lunar dust, and they never claimed to walk on the moon! no matter what ones opinion are here: landed or not landed, we need to get one thing straight: there has NEVER EVER been any kind of independent verification, so it was much easier to fake it than what ppl uses to believe

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Of *course* NASA was able to send unmanned landers to the moon. And they did -- Surveyor. They were *ALSO* able to send manned landers. And they did -- Apollo.

Any rational, logical, open-minded human being of normal intelligence can see plenty of evidence that Apollo was perfectly real. As for others, well, I can't convince our cats that Apollo went to the moon either. Doesn't mean it didn't.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal you put words in everyone elses mouth include Jarrah, yet you cry like a baby yourself lol... how would jodrell bank see if it was astronauts onboard Apollo? thats one hi-tec radio telescope! even a cat is smart enough to understand that humans never set a foot on the moon

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist There is no rational reason NOT to believe that Apollo was real. The technology is entirely consistent with established physical laws. There is plenty of evidence ranging from communications to photographs to returned samples to eyewitness reports that it happened just as described.

As Spock once said about Captain Kirk, "If I release a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity field, I do not need to see it fall to know that it has, in fact, fallen".

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal EYEWITNESS?! eyewitness confirm Neil and Buzz landed on the moon?!?! According to your laughable propagandists, NASA first send a eyewitness to the moon to VERIFY the "first"(wait, second?) moon landing? yeah right, thats what you try to say!

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist The astronauts who actually walked on the moon are only a few of the eyewitnesses to the event. Something like 400,000 people worked on Apollo and every one of them could talk about their role and how it fit into the project. Except for Kaysing and a few other crackpots with chips on their shoulders who left early without any real insight into the project, not one of them doubts that it really happened. No laws of physics were violated; it just took a lot of work and money.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Here we go again!, LIAR. Kaysing left in 1963 and Saturn V was already built so he had full insight into the rocket project. Like Kaysing, Ralph Rene also knew that the piece of crap saturnrocket wouldnt be able to make it to the moon so he asked NASA for the blueprints, he also asked for the blueprints for the LM but NASA didnt sent him a SHIT - because there arent any blueprints left(LOL wonder why) Thats why they using different rockets today - WORKING rockets.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist We've already been over this. The Saturn V didn't fly until 1967, so it was hardly "already built" when Kaysing left the Rockwell library in 1963. When it did fly, there were millions of eyewitnesses. Did they all imagine it?

Everything Kaysing writes makes it obvious he was completely clueless. He tosses out a few impressive-sounding words he picked up from the documents he saw that were written by engineers far above his pay grade, but that's a far cry from understanding them.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Here we go again (u retarded? seriously) All the F-1 and J-2 engines in Saturn V was common used in other rockets and already built somewhere around 1959-1962 BY Rocketdyne, Kaysing had full insight and new it wouldnt work as claimd and the rocket stood finish already back in 1963 (named C-5) and was later renamed to Saturn V. U need go visit a doctor to check out your braindamages.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Name all the other launch vehicles, prior to the Saturn IB and V, that actually flew either the F-1 or J-2 engines. What's that? You can't?

Both engines required extensive testing and engineering (e.g., to solve combustion instability problems) before the Saturn V flew for the first time in 1967. So yeah, it wasn't flying in 1963 when Kaysing left Rockwell. Don't we already know that?

You can tell Kaysing made it up as he went along in those interviews. What a moron.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Your basic problem is that there's no particular reason to deny Apollo happened. No laws of physics had to be violated; it just took a sustained engineering effort and a lot of money. Now if you believe that money was wasted, you certainly have a right to that opinion. But you cannot deny it happened for the simple reason that it did happen. That the Apollo landings conflict with your basic view of the US government as an unmitigated incompetent evil is your problem, no one else's.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Answer the question dipshit!! when and how did NASA send the eyewitness to the moon to verify the moon landings?

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Well, aside from the nice LRO pictures of all the landing sites we have plenty of other evidence: radio signals from the moon heard by ham and non-US radio receivers; laser reflectors still in use today; thousands of photographs; hundreds of kilos of samples unquestionably from the moon with NO plausible alternative explanation for how we got them.

All the technology is open to public inspection, and I haven't seen anything that couldn't work as advertised.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Apollo was probably the best-documented large engineering project in history. Thousands of detailed documents are on the NTRS and elsewhere, and you can see most of the hardware in museums. And when you study it all as I have, you see absolutely no reason it couldn't have worked just as advertised.

This presents a serious problem for your side: with all this evidence there's simply no rational reason to think that we didn't go.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal No you havent study a shit since theres no bluprints to study! None of the hardware is documented, LM program alone claimed to have cost 6.9 billion dollars, yet it has a 110 pages document. Submarine orders and other similar military project with similar costs have documents of averages 30,000 pages. 110 pages is only about 1.4 million dollars and thats what a MUSEUM LM would had cost... and thats the only kinda LM that were built.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Only a child would try to make something go away by covering his eyes with his hands and refusing to look. There is a HUGE amount of detailed technical documentation from Apollo on the NASA Technical Reports Server, ntrs dot nasa dot gov, and jumping up and down and insisting it doesn't exist only makes you look silly. Bring up your web browser and try it.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist My collection of downloaded Apollo documentation is currently around 36 gigabytes. I'd say that represents somewhat more than 110 pages, wouldn't you say?

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Learn read, jackass! i said the entire LM project alone(not ENTIRE Apollo) only had a 110 pages document (A4 size paper)

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Perhaps you're the one who should learn to read -- and write. You flatly said "none of the hardware is documented". Apollo hardware was not limited to the LM. But even if I were to count only the publicly available LM documentation, you're still low by several orders of magnitude.

Tell me, do you ever actually fact-check the nonsense you get from Kaysing et al? Obviously not. And now that you're trying to defend it, you're realizing he's not quite the expert you thought.

[sardoniclysane]

@xismxist

Do you mean the Bill Wood who worked on the s band communications for the Apollo missions? He clearly believes that the events happened. So what, you took a misquote and turned it into a conspiracy?

[xismxist]

@sardoniclysane If you was watching the link i gave you, you wouldnt need to ask that your moron! it was BILL WOOD BSC - rocket scientist and engineer

[sardoniclysane]

@xismxist

Ah still spouting your usual nonsense I see. So your original claims were debunked, and now you want to try and pin the hoax on the fact you're unable to find the mountains of technical reports and publicly available data relating to the designing of hardware?

[xismxist]

@sardoniclysane Name ONE claim that debunked your fucking TROLL! i prefer trust engineers instead of a pathetic keyboard warrior like you, and the rest of the propaganda NUTS

[sardoniclysane]

@xismxist

If that was really true, you'd believe the consensus from the engineering world, which is the crafts were designed to go to the moon, and did their job admirably. Has any of the engineers (the many thousands of engineers), ever come out and said they couldn't perform the job? What about all the other aerospace engineers who have had time to review the technical reports, the designs, hell the crafts themselves? Wait, they all agree that these were the legitimate article.

[sardoniclysane]

So obviously you do not prefer to trust engineers, you prefer to trust someone who believes there is a hoax to be had here, when there isn't. The mountains of evidence supports the mainstream version of events, and not a shred of actual evidence supports otherwise.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Now I concede that you need a scientific background to understand much of Apollo's scientific returns, and an engineering background to understand much of the Apollo documentation. I am an engineer, so I can understand most of the Apollo engineering documents with a little effort. I've studied a lot of Apollo engineering and I've never seen ANYTHING that obviously couldn't work as described.

So if you lack the background to understand Apollo, that's really your problem, no one else's.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Your not an engineer your a proven LIAR and nothing else. YOU didnt build the Saturn V engines, BILL KAYSING did. I prefer trust him instead of a propaganda troll on the internet like you are.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist I'm not an engineer? Really? I guess those two university engineering degree diplomas on my wall must be illusions, and my memories and records of 33 years of industrial engineering experience since graduation must be false plants of some sort, eh?

Bill Kaysing didn't build ANYTHING. The man was a librarian with no training as an engineer. You only have to listen to him talk to realize he's bluffing, and actually knew almost nothing about rocketry and space travel.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist You hoaxheads have a real problem. You have to concede that NASA had a robotic lunar capability in the 60s because you simply can't deny the lunar samples. In fact you claim a robotic return capability that they did *not* have. But it's just not that big a step from robots to manned spacecraft; just add a pressurized cabin, a life support system and stores of food and water. And a bigger rocket, which millions of people saw fly in person. You simply have no credible argument left.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Soviet had a robotic lunar capability you already forgot the lunochods? i have plenty of arguments left, you on the other hand makes no sense... in one moment Soviet couldnt and in next moment they could, they couldnt even track their own Lunas your jackass but you believe they tracked Apollo LMFAO!

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Since when did I say the Soviets couldn't track their own probes? Of course they could; pictures of their ground stations are well known. They had Jodrell Bank listen in simply so the west would believe they'd actually done what they claimed they'd done.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal YOUR FUCKING LIAR. JB themself states that Soviet was the last to see the pics, the very same and ONLY pics - coming from JB. Soviet couldnt track Luna they was depended on JB EOD.

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal If a theory was a fact, your so-called conspiracy theorist would be telling the truth, you wouldn't want that now would you? Science can change on time that's why is a theory and when that change occurs it is no longer the right answer. Science is endless and so are lies just to get his name in lights. That's no theory, it is declassified information that never cease and you support that bullshit...

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper You're making even less sense than before. The evidence that Apollo went to the moon is both voluminous and diverse. You can't refute any of it with logic or specific facts so you simply wave your hands about how we can't really know anything at all (i.e., solipsism). Or you'll say that because scientific theories occasionally change, none of them can be relied on for anything -- which is almost the same thing. This is simply nonsense.

[ApolloWasReal]

@GUARDIANtrooper (contd) Apollo was an engineering project that applied our scientific understanding of quantum physics, relativity, motion, chemistry, electromagnetism, etc. But that's true for ALL of engineering, including everyday technology; one reason there were so many Apollo spinoffs.

So to claim that scientists don't know anything is to deny that the stuff you use every day doesn't really work. And that's just utterly bogus.



[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal You really don't comprehend shit I say do you? I didn't say every scientist lie, some lie to get recognition, do you not agree with that? How in the hell did you get I don't believe in scientific discoveries and breakthroughs out of some scientist are liars and cheaters to build a name. They do shit like that all the time. Some scientist would agree if it sounds credible. That is why you people believe in this moon landing bullshit until the truth surface, then what? You hide...

[GUARDIANtrooper]

@ApolloWasReal If a theory was a fact, your so-called conspiracy theorist would be telling the truth, you wouldn't want that now would you? Yes, of course science is viewed differently. Science can change in time, that's why it is a theory and when that change occurs it is no longer the right answer. Science is endless and so are lies just to get your name in lights. That's no theory, it is declassified information that never cease and you support that bullshit...

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal The story so far: i pointed out the LM's robotic motion during docking (its a model whos being moved by a magnet) and with no exhaust plumes whatsoever, its a proven fake. I agree with you that theres plumes that is not easy to see but they're not INVISIBLE (vacuum itself is whats invisible)

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist The story so far: You claimed that the LM footage was faked because no rocket plumes were visible. You further claimed that every rocket always produces a visible plume. I showed you several other clips of the same kind of rocket firing in space without any visible plumes whatsoever.

You frantically attempted to change the subject a few times, but the conclusion was unavoidable: your sole basis for claiming the LM ascent footage fake is totally busted. Case closed.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal The story so far: you cant prove we landed on the moon, jackass (because it doesnt exists any)

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist I can't use logic and reason to prove to your satisfaction that we went to the moon because your belief that we didn't isn't based on logic and reason in the first place. Even if I could take you there and show you the Apollo artifacts, you'd claim they were planted by NASA or that I planted the whole experience in your brain a la "Total Recall".

What matters is that any bystanders who see these discussions realize that hoaxheads like you haven't a leg to stand on.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Your stunned silence would seem to indicate that you've seen the Delta video footage that clearly demonstrates that hypergolic rockets don't produce vacuum plumes in a vacuum, and therefore nothing is wrong with the Apollo LM ascent footage not showing them either.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal Exhaust plumes can clearly been seen in all links you gave me, you clearly must be extremely desperate...

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist You clearly must be blind. After the startup transient I see NO plume whatsoever from the Delta II second stage. That rocket burns the same hypergolic propellants -- Aerozine 50 and N2O4 -- as the LM ascent engine; in fact, I've heard that the Delta design was derived from it. And, burning in a vacuum, its plume was invisible even to a TV camera a few feet.

Indeed that Delta burn couldn't have resembled a LM ascent engine burn more closely, start transient and all.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Just so it's clear, I'm talking about the Delta II SECOND stage engine. It doesn't appear in the 12/14/06 video until near the end. The first stage burns kerosene/LOX and has a thin streaky black plume in vacuum. The second stage is hypergolic.

First stage cutoff is at 6:57. Staging is at 7:07. At 7:12. the 2nd stage ignites and we see a brief orange flash as the plume hits the first stage. The burn continues with a TOTALLY INVISIBLE plume as the fairing halves fall away.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist And just in case you try to argue incorrectly that the second stage burned only for a few seconds and then shut down, the upper stage is clearly under continuous acceleration starting from ignition. If it wasn't, the camera wouldn't be accelerating away from the jettisoned first stage and the jettisoned payload fairing halves.

Cameras have now been flown on numerous Delta II flights. They all show the very same thing: a second stage engine with an invisible plume. Just like the LM.

[xismxist]

@ApolloWasReal The plumes you refer to is still NOT INVISIBLE, it can still be seen try to understand that there's no such thing like INVISIBLE exhausts. Dark red exhaust /watch?v=4oIifQdw-BQ just like Kaysing said all the time, thats what we should have seen both from LM's engine's and also from its thrusters, same goes for the CSM.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist Not that it's relevant, but what exactly in clip 4oIifQdw-BQ are you referring to? There's quite a few clips concatenated there.

[ApolloWasReal]

@xismxist See watch?v=IvB-8CWw9eU. It's a Delta II with a hypergolic upper stage just like Apollo. Staging is right before the end. Except for the ignition transient the upper stage plume is COMPLETELY invisible. Even the kerosene/LOX mainstage plume, which is very bright in air, gets very diffuse in vacuum, with just some black streaks.

[damienz007]

this is a fake lol

[sardoniclysane]

Care to explain to us why?

[thehoaxbuster]

Is this at normal speed or faster?