What if you found out that NASA had HI DEF LRO images back in 1966? Could you consider that with the photo editing capabilities available today that nothing is real and everything you think you know could indeed be part of one big lie?
Watch my feature titled, 1966 - 1967 Lunar Orbiter Probes High Resolution Maps of the Moon
what do you now , ? do you dissapear another month ?repeat the same lies again and again?you try to confuse with misunderstanded calculations? or claim for instructions to your leaders?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA As I said before, I'm always here, Miguel. And the fact that you don't understand what I've said (or don't want to understand what I've said) doesn't mean that anything I've said is a lie. If you refuse to "believe" definitions and formulas, then it's your problem, not mine.
@philwebb59 is very clear when you evade give an answer on this basic question, you limitates yourself to repeat the samelies, incongruencies and falling in contradictions or evading the question at all,...like now,
@philwebb59 pathetic and now you cant find the question... about the absence of crater? remember? inregolith,remember? dust and sand,remember?meters deep.,remember?with the same rocket who rise regolith at altitude but nt at the near distance,remember?the rocket dont shut off since the lem was landed,remember? of course you remember but prefer act as stupid,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 From what I can interpret from that hodgepodge, I think I've addressed each of your questions satisfactorily on several occasions. But, since you weren't paying attention, let's recap, one last time. Listen and try to understand what I say this time, will you?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Absence of a crater? What's your question exactly? Are you asking me why there isn't a crater under the LM? Look down through the comments to this video. How many times did I say there wasn't a crater? Zero. How many times did I say that photos show there is a six-inch depression under Antares carved out by her DPS engine? Several. How many times did I say that that DPS engine eroded away 8 metric tons of regolith? Several.
@philwebb59 finally you admit far from your former opinion , of instant disipation of the thurst or not consider the jet as a eroding flux than a column,see your video, you dont sustain mor this assets, the remaining question is the regolith,ac cording nasa is meters deep not eroding resist material, mix of dust and sand... but the photos show a different material,, dust over hard eroding resist material...what do you say about this ?or nasa lies defining the moon regolith?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA iremember how you try the last time to explain how the terrible pressure of the centimeters layer of dust, in moon gravity, firmly packed the underlayer making this eroding resist.you want to say the same lie now?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Terrible pressure? I'm sure I did not use those words. The deeper you go, the more firmly packed the regolith becomes. The deeper you go, the more firmly the grains "lock" together. If you don't believe me on that, you don't believe science. You don't believe common sense. You're not going to have fluffy powder burried meters below the surface. It's going to be hard packed. Prove me wrong. Don't just sit there and call me a liar; prove me wrong.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I finally admit what? I said there was 8 metric tons of material carved out of a 6-inch bowl under Antaries. I've said that countless times, so what is it you think I "finally admitted?"
As far as your "remaining question" about regolith, I wish I understood what you're asking. It sounds like you believe regolith is homogenous over the lunar surface. It is not. It varies in depth and density.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 In 1968, Quaide and Oberbeck estimated 1 to 6 m and 1 to 16 m from lunar orbiter photos. Data from the Surveyor landers lead to estimates anywhere from 2 to 15 cm up to 8 to 10 m. Seismic experiments left behind at the Apollo landing sites indicate the regolith depth in non-mare sites is 8.5m (Apollo 14) and 12.2m (Apollo 16) and 4m or 7 to 12 m (depending on the model) at the Apollo 17 mare site. Under the regolith is rubble. Under that is probably vesicular basalt.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #3 How big should the crater be? You never say, but my numbers (6-inch bowl) are very close to Saxton's numbers (7-inch bowl), which I didn't even know about until you brought his report to my attention a year ago.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #4 Then, a model resulting from the 1966 LM jet erosion experiment (NASA-TN-D-5051), which you also brought to my attention, showed that if the LM continued to fire its engine for five seconds after touchdown, the exhaust might displace 15.5 metric tons of regolith. Antaries shutdown its engine 0.2 seconds BEFORE touchdown, so my estimate of 8 metric tons from the photographs is consistent with Land and Scholl's model. Is there another report you want to bring to my attention?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #5 What exactly are you trying to ask when you say "regolith? dust and sand? meters deep?" These are words with question marks after them. They are not questions. I have no idea at all on how to interpret what these words and question marks mean. "Albatross? Halliburton? Chappaquiddick?" There, answer that.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #6 All I can say is that regolith and sand are not alike. Regolith is more cohesive due to its shape and size. It's also held together by electrostatic attraction. Sand is not. And, the deeper you go into the regolith, the more packed it gets and the harder it is to make it move. Remember the difficulty the astronauts had getting their flags planted? If it's so easy to cut into regolith, why didn't the flag poles just slide in like butter?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #7 "same rocket who rise regolith at altitude but nt at the near distance." Dear God, I think I understand what you said this time. If so, I'm a genius. I think you're asking why the DPS engine could create a dust storm while it was well above the surface, yet it couldn't dig a several-meters-deep crater when it was only inches from the ground.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #8 Answer: The LM began kicking up "dust" during the last 30 to 40 feet of descent. The lower they got - the more dust they kicked up and they continued to kick up dust until they turned off the DPS engine. In the last few seconds of descent, Apollo 14 kicked up 8 metric tons of regolith from directly under the LM.
@philwebb59 t this "dust" is precisely the REGOLITH!! METERS DEEP REGOLITH!according nasa texts.The lower they got - the more dust(REGOLITH) they kicked up and they continued to kick up dust (REGOLITH)until they turned off the DPS engine... WELL!! .. but WHERE ARE THE CRATER????
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 8 metric tons of regolith carved out of a 6-inch bowl. There's your crater, Miguel. A crater consistent with all the "irrefutable" evidence you've thrown at me to date. You got any more secret weapons up your sleeves? Do you have yet another NASA report that proves there should be a crater under the LM?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Which brings another question to mind. Why, do you suppose, would NASA publish data that proved they faked the Apollo missions? Why would they make "the truth" public when a complete idot could put two-and-two together and figure out there their data indicates there should be a crater? A massive crater at that. One that's meters-deep. Why would they put such information out there? I don't expect you to answer that; it would cause you to have to think, but it's a good question.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #9 This should give you an idea of how quickly the exhaust expands and "vanishes" into the vacuum of space. Exhaust was leaving the engine nozzle with 13k N of force, yet it had no visible effect on the lunar surface at altitudes above 30 to 40 ft.
@philwebb59 THe efect of the rocket in the vaccum are well showed in the video of the ascent module ripping the aluminium of the lem landed inmoon and in the landing video showing how at distance the rocket rise regolith of the moon shadowing the landing procedure,may be you want to agree that in the moon in vaccum the forces efect are proportionals to the square of the distance than inverse proportionals as the rest of universe,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I'm done on this one. Answered it too many times already. You just keep repeating yourself. We both know the APS engine blew taped-down foil off the launch pad, not aluminum. The rest of that, I really didn't understand, but it sounds like your "kicking up dust at a distance, yet not digging a meters-deep crater" question, which I've already answered.
@philwebb59 if you think thata your falacious theory of the underlayer of dust and sand firmly packed of the enormous pressure of the thin layer of dust in moon gravity, magically do this underlayer erotion resist? well you are very wrong..
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 But, just for fun, I'll return to an old question of mine... How deep should the crater be? I've shown all my cards. I've nothing up my sleeves. Come on, give the ol' do-or-die. How deep should it be? How many metric tons of material of regolith should the DPS engine be able to dig out of that crater? Sadly, we both know, you cannot answer any of my questions. You'll have all kinds of excuses why you can't do the math, yet my math is "lies and fallacies." Poor, poor Miguel.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #10 "the rocket dont shut off since the lem was landed." Oops! Genius that I am, you lost me on that one. Are you saying that they didn't shut off the engine after they landed? Why on earth wouldn't they? Err? Why on the moon wouldn't they? What purpose would be served by leaving the engine on after they landed? I don't understand. On the later H-type missions, it would actually be dangerous to leave the engine running. What are you smoking, Miguel?
@philwebb59 the rocket was off when thw module was landed, not before, not instantly the module was landing near the vertical several seconds rising material at more distance than the minimum... you know very well this fact but prefere play like a fool.o f course VERY DIFFERENT TO THE CHILDISH ANIMATION YOU SHOW IN THIS RIDICULE VIDEO
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Yes, generally the DPS engine was shut off shortly after the contact probes registered a hit and before the landing pads touched.
Mission Shutdown (seconds before TD)
Apollo 11 0.0
Apollo 12 1.3
Apollo 14 0.2
Apollo 15 2.7
Apollo 16 0.7
Apollo 17 0.5
Them's the facts, Miguel. Read 'em and weep. Or, just ignore them facts as you usually do. Whatever... (As if I actually expect you to understand anything, for a change.)
BTW, the LM also moved horizontally while landing.
@philwebb59 he said "Contact light!". Three seconds later, Eagle landed and Armstrong said "Shutdown". Aldrin immediately said "Okay, engine stop. between contact light to landing spent 3 seconds of the rocket actuating over the regolith nearing more and more, 170 cm in 3 sec...... 2kmh very slow descent ,more time to act the rocket over the regolith.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #11 Each mission was unique. Armstrong shutdown his DPS engine at touchdown, which was later than any of the other landings. At the other end, Scott shut off his engine early and fell the final 2.7 seconds, damaging the engine nozzle in the process. The later they shutoff the engine the more material you would expect to be eroded away and IF they had left the engine running for many seconds after touchdown, you might expect to see a sizable amount of regolith eroded away.
@philwebb59 "Armstrong shutdown his DPS engine at touchdown " after the touchdown,not instantly....many seconds is an arbitrary asset..the lem was not put off over the landing site and started only when was landed the lem was descent near vertical several seconds before.and for you this force this jet stream cant make any eefct over the regolith... absurd.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 Yes, at touchdown. 0.0 seconds before TD. 0.0 seconds after TD. Whichever way you want to look at it. So, are you going to try to prove Apollos 12-17 should have dug a crater with what you can scrounge up from aulis (.) com about Apollo 11? There was more than one mission, you know. There were six landings; all unique in some respects.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 So, answer me this: How many seconds would they have to run their engines after landing to dig a 1-meter crater? How about a two-meter crater? How about a crater so big that they would fall in and never get out?
I don't really expect you to answer any of these questions. It's not your style. Instead, you'll come back with "What about being able to kick up dust from a distance and not being able to dig a crater in regolith?" You're like an old boxer, Miguel. I see 'em coming.
@philwebb59 how deep must erode a rocket jet at near distance over dust and sand,,,...? how deep? the dust and sand can resist the eroding action? or fly far expelled in the vacuum?is a rocket jet like this unable to affect a deep pile of dust and sand'?dust and sand have the resistance of concrete?this is the today concept of regolith?
@philwebb59 for you your question have only to ways to answer by the precisely measure or the complete denial of all the notions, logical, facts, videos ,only means to you to say " yes sir" according with all of the nasa version.. h ow the same rocket can kick up dust from a distance and cant dig a crater in regolith?this is difficult question to you?
aacording your lies the same rocket who is capable to affect the dust and sand , the meters deep regolith surface of the moon,at more distance than the minimum, the same rocket CANT make more over the same surface than a leaves blower is "logical thinking for you"..
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I think you're referring to the "pressure" thing. Force, not pressure, is what moves things. Pressure is a rate, pressure per area. For example, half the force over one-tenth the area gives five-times more pressure over that area.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I never said the regolith was only centimeters deep. I said there is evidence from the photos that the DPS engine eroded away a few centimeters of regolith during the lunar landings.
well barnum web try to explain to us how the rocket of the lem cant make a crater in a meters deep sand an dust soil but a less powerfull rocket like the ascent module can tear the protective shield on top the lem when take off? try
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again -- last time -- landing at 30% throttle, the DPS engine put out about 13000 N. On take off, the APS engine put out 16000 N. That means the ascent engine ran at 25% more thrust than the descent engine. The stuff that the exhaust from the APS engine ripped off the launch platform was blankets of foil. Google "Lunar Module Assembly Photos" (include the quote marks) and look at the photos at myspacemuseum (.) com. No more on this subject.
@philwebb59 , to landing at constant speed the thurst are the same as the lem weight.the lem was constructed in aluminium,and the top of the lem is a shield to protect the rocket fuel tanks.see th schematics and plans of grumman the lem fabricant,before to attempt to lie, aluminium is very different with a meters deep of soil mix of dust and sand.
@Rob260259 i dont know alot of things, but the few i knew are very well knowed and logically used by me..do you wantsay something about the questions and contradictions of barnum webb?
- 2. Stop spamming this video with utter nonsense.
- 3. Why do you suppose there isn't a REAL expert or credentialed person anywhere in the world who would agree with your theories? When was the last time you saw amateur, semi-educated, wannabe conspiracy theorists overthrow the entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?
@Rob260259 well , indeed the person who i ask for answers, read very well my bad english, your opinion is irrelevant,spam is an adjective , but you prefer dont answerr than put adjectives,, and third, expert?AGREE? PLEASE, authority falacies now? hahaha i expose reasons, refer to videos , photos and publica data, and generally im refering to nasa quotes,bla bla bla, more adjectives " semieducated" wannabe consp..."etcetc,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA You do realize you left that comment to Rob that time. I'm Phil. Rob is Rob. I know it's kind of hard to tell us apart sometimes. Seeing how all propaganis look alike. But, I'm the one you're harping on about not answering questions. At least, I think I am. Maybe that's Rob. I don't know. I'd ask you who's who, but you'd probably just shoot back with another silly question.
Wow... having 'fun' with Miguel? Reading this all is like watching a forensic detective in a kindergarten explaining about the genetic information carried by DNA segments and the difference between an evidence sample and a reference sample.
I'm afraid poor Miguel here is hopelessly out of his depth. And he's unable to hide behind his basic knowledge of English.
@Rob260259 and certainly you dont hide your ignorance of the theme .is very clear you dont have to say nothing obout it, and your tactics of shame from your childhhod only work over people like you..
Notantible always capicha nowhre cratering over 9 incheffecting jparlez nothing loworbiting power firsting only mio fronera solida instantly antennae invaccuume PHil waswas forced supporing to find motor of the lunarenthe lem was lifttoff cant producero effects sand and nevere the same than the advertiso delibrantee near distance must be more i truly find calculatives no where.
@philwebb59 and finaly remaining adjective like call silly questions to a question you CANT ANSWER.AND IS A SIMPLE QUESTION...for sillys arguments and falacies is enough with this garbage that you call "video".
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Spam is an adjective? Maybe in Portuguese, but in English it's a noun or a verb. You can for an adjective by adding an appropriate suffix. For example: "Spam-like" would be an adjective. "Spamly" isn't a word, so stay away from it.
@philwebb59 qualify the question when an answer is required, only qualify is reduce to say adjectives,,, your attitude is adjestive then sustantive,, answer the question dont put useless adjectives.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA "Adjestive" and "sustantive" are not English words. They're not even close enough to English words for me to even guess what you're talking about.
@Rob260259 jajajathe entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?"""entire planet""more falacies falacie of number,,,oh the mayority,,acording you only,,acording you , all MUST!! FOLLOW THE MAYORITY AHAHAHAH well this attitude may be confortable to you in order to not think, but im not confortable in this parasite unminded attitude,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again, I think that comment should have been directed at me. I'm the one who you accuse of not being able to answer questions, while you have demonstrated time and time again that you are the only one here incapable of answering questions. "Oh! It's to hard to figure out how deep a crater should be. It makes my brain hurt." Buck up, Miguel. Show us something new. Answer just one question put to you. How big should the crater under the LM be?
@philwebb59 and acuse precisely the same of you are doing, evade asking and lying , thats have a name cinism. i dont answer this question in the same form i dont answer how deep go a bullet in your brain fired at near distance but i may say if the shoot was vertically over surface ,you have a hole surely .
generalmente es este chico un tonto culo alleem pero extraños comentarios poco probable prestar atención un poco a su soledad que parece causada principalmente por una increíblemente profunda desconfianza en la humanidad en General y los gobiernos en particular.
@Rob260259 Okay? I see your point. Our friend Miguel is deeply disturbed and probably paranoid to boot. He was good practice for me though. I seldom go in the trenches and argue with these nuts like you do. It was fun for a while, but I'm really getting board with him now. I was hoping he would have brought up another NASA report, but I think he's exhausted his sources.
@philwebb59 pure giberish and more adjectives, and seudo psicologycal coment,,wel if you are glad to pretend be a phisic ,now pretend be a therapist,,hahaha.and 2 minutes ago pretend be carmen miranda.hahahaa
@MIGUEL2005LIMA if nasa say and show a photo of your bruise you admit this as true, the hole in your head? well its not important for you,, only a lie of conspirators.. may be the bullet remains ricocheting inside your head. or your head sudennly be bullet proof hard rock firmly packed,,hahahaa
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Who's not thinking? You've demonstrated repeatedly that you are not thinking clearly. As soon as you see "proof" that you're wrong, you change to another claim. How many more silly claims do you have in your bag, Miguel.
@philwebb59 im concentrated in the same simple question ...and repeat and repeat only to make more noticeable how evasive are you hahaha. the question is everr the same and your silence is evidence of you CANT ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION.or maybe the question is not clear enough for you?or you dont find in the web the answer, thinking required..
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Your not being able to understand simple physics is not a contradiction on my part. So far, every "irrefutable source" that you have used to support your claims has backfired on you. You ought to stop before you dig yourself in any deeper.
@philwebb59 bla bla bla, you never refutate nothing but as now, evade, try to distract an go to the limbs..and of course finally claim you do make that you dont do. you evade answer with logical and reason and without contradict the nasa papers and concepts, or nasa videos,,and photos,, you are "reasonrproof" only repeats and repeats the same and the same,covering your falcies with numbers, but in absense of reasonable thinking,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I claim I do what I don't do? What? I have no idea what you're saying. The fact that you don't understand me has little to do with whether I do what I say I do, if that makes any sense at all. I evade answers with logic ? and reason? I answer your silly questions with logic and reason. And, without contradicting ? NASA papers, etc.? So far, none of the NASA papers, etc. that you bring up have done you any good. Every time, you manage to shoot your self in the foot.
@philwebb59 is very clear you cant answer the simple question puting contradictory falacies is not enough and dont qualify as an answer the question is very simple the regolith is a mix of dust and sand meters deep , not erotion resist material as demosntrated for the landing video, but whenthe lem is over the moon ,very near, the regolith is not more dust an sand, instead than dust over a erotion resist material as showed in the photos of moon from nasa,,, what happens?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 Ah! That's more like it. Sad, pathetic musings from a desperate hoax cultist. Regolith is not a mixture of dust and sand. It's crushed rock. It's more primitive than sand. Sand is unique to earth. Each grain of sand has been worn down -- smoothed -- due to exposure to weather and water. Regolith clings. It sticks together due to its sharp flat faces and electrostatic attraction.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Answer me, Miguel. If the LM can begin to kick up dust between 30 and 40 ft, then how deep a crater should it dig if the nozzle is only 16-inches from the lunar surface? 6-inches from the lunar surface? You think there should be a noticeable crater, so how big is noticeable? Tell me how big the crater should be, so that I may believe. Teach me, Obi-Wan.
@philwebb59 an inpercetible subtle depression of lessthan15 cm is a crater for you?is enough effect of a jet stream enough power to tears aluminiumin bits? how explain this jet cant produce more effect over the same dust and sand than the showed?at this point youcant denied thatthe jet effect at near distance must be more noticeable, think anotherthing is ilogical...
@philwebb59 you are retracting over several points gradually. first, only consider the jet as a solid column,the absurd theory of the instantly and magically dissipation of thurst invaccuum,you wasforced to admit the engine of apollo 11was shut whenthe lem was landed,an with this leave apart seudo arguments the correspondent falacious " calculations"
@philwebb59 you wasforced to admit that the moon regolith is dust and sand meters deep and your claim for "cohession" isnnot enough to make dust and sand erotion resist,..you dont more sustain the absurd of the soil packed by the enormous force of a thin layer of dust..question? when you admit that your video, this video is only a frustrated attempt to lie fullfilled with lies packed in seudo scientific style?
@philwebb59 i try to dig on your mind but is hard rock as the soil showed in the videos and photos of nasa,,very different to the acepted,and writed by nasa , concept of regolith,dont care about me,indeed try to find deep in your falacius mind , dont leave to me to any deep.never,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA If you mean I don't change my mind, you're right. My message has been very clear and consistent. You, on the other hand, appear to be dancing all over the place. Every I smack down one of your nonsense claims, you make another, equally nonsensical one. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of what you said. Wish I understood pigeon English. We might fair better if you used an online translator.
@philwebb59 very clear falacies and only consistent with the capaign of lies you do some time ago,your MESSAGE is dont question, dont think , all is right, but you cant answer or solve the contradiction,,or explain the absence of crater,,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA "the lem was constructed in aluminium" and on top of that aluminum was a thermal blanket. Did you not look at the pictures? They taped the foil to the body of the descent stage -- to the launch deck and to all sides. Did You Not Look At The Pictures? The aluminum stayed put; the gold foil blew off. DID YOU NOT LOOK AT THE PICTURES? I am not going to repeat myself on this subject again. I can't make you open your eyes and look at the pictures, but I will ignore your silly dribble.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA BTW, an empty (except for fuel) ascent stage weighed 4,700 kg X 9.81 m/s2 = 46,100 N on earth. That means that on earth it pushed down with 46,100 N of force while "at rest." It produced 16,000 N thrust when lifting off from the moon. That's one-third the force it exerted on the descent stage when it was "at rest" on earth. If 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage at liftoff, then 46,000 N should have crumpled it before it left the earth. Whack, whack.
@philwebb59 If 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage at liftoff, then 46,000 N should have ..a more impact over the dust and sand soil, the regolith,, meters deep dust and sand,, thats the fact your numbers areunable to denied,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. IF -- BIG IF -- 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage during liftoff from the moon, then why didn't 46,000 N, the force the ascent stage exerted on the descent stage while "at rest" on the earth, crumple the descent stage before it left the earth? In other words, if the DS is so flimsy that it flies apart at 16k N, then why doesn't it fall apart with 46k N, three-times more force?
@philwebb59 the same stupidity,, is flimsy the DS¿?is light weight but not flimsy ,tought and light as an airplane, is the ascent module ,as the video of moon lift off,who tears of the descent stage top bits of aluminium of this strcuture expelled radially,as see in the video,.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Bits of aluminum? You think the aluminum sheets come apart? They're welded, dear. You think that the aluminum sheets would tear apart and pieces would break off with 16k N of force? Then why didn't the descent stage break and fall apart on earth when they placed the ascent stage on top of her? Answer that question. Gold foil blew off the launch deck. Gold foil held on by tape. You agree there was foil taped on the platform, don't you. Shouldn't that blow off first?
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I think you mean "refute" and yes I can. You've not come up with one credible argument yet. What ever happened to J. A. Saxton's irrefutable report? In 1966 he estimated there would be a 7-inch deep bowl under the LM. From the photos, I estimated a 6-inch bowl carved out under Antares (Apollo 14), 8 metric tons of regolith. You totally disappeared for a year after that. What about that irrefutable NASA video showing how easy it was...
@philwebb59 you are unable to explain how the lem at far altitude, rise materials of the ground, dust and sandm regolith in resume.. but the same rocket with the same thurst at the near distanc of the module landed, as in apollo 11m ission, teh same rocket only wips dust of a several erotion resist ground surface inconsistent with the definition of moon regolith...
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again, I couldn't grasp the message you are trying so desperately to convey. Perhaps if you sent your questions or comments to Rob, he could translate them for me.
All I can figure is that you're saying they used the same "rocket" for both ascent and descent. Nothing could be more wrong, my friend. The descent engine was inside the descent stage. The ascent engine is inside the ascent stage. Also, "sand" as we are familiar with on earth, and regolith are not the same.
@philwebb59 no stupid, falacius stupid, the same rocket who before the touchdown rise materials of the moon soil , the lem rocket,this same rocket who in the near distance are not able to afect the meters deep regolith before afected. well is not the same sand and regolith as is not the same "cohession" of " firmly packed" ( firmily packed for what?) than erotion resist,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA You're repeating yourself, again. I just answered the "same engine" argument in #7 above. But, look at it this way: When the DPS engine began kicking up dust, it was light at first and gradually increased as they descended from 30 to 40 ft down to about 6 ft. They were also moving horizontally during the descent. So, they really were not over their landing site until the last few seconds. Kicking up dust at 40 ft takes considerably less force than drilling a meters-deep crater.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA After looking back on that strafing episode, the one-and-only thing I want to hear from you is your answer as to how the APS engine exhaust can rip welded aluminum panels apart, even rip chunks of aluminum off the panels, yet not affect the gold foil taped to the surface of those aluminum panels. Or, put another way, how can 16k N rip aluminum panels to shreds on the moon, yet on earth the descent stage doesn't even budge with 46k N pushing down on it from the ascent stage.
@philwebb59 falacious like er, all the necesari to not answer a simple question, but i f you cant....only remains for youtry to concentrate the attention in the aluminized mylar foil....respect the regolith ,nothing to say,,or how the lem rocket acts over the regolith at more distance than the landing, nothing, how at near distance the regolith remains unafected nothing,, barnum web the evasive lier of ever.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I asked you how the APS engine exhaust ripped apart aluminum panels without touching the thermal blanket that was taped to them. I asked you how 16k N of force could rip and mangle the launch platform when 46k N does not. In reply you ask why I'm so concerned about the aluminized Mylar film. Who's avoiding the question? I've answered all your questions whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Anyone can glance up and down these comments and see how many times I've actually answered all your questions at least once, and yet you have never answered one of mine. Shame on you, Miguel.
@philwebb59 you may think that your disappearing of one month when you was depleted of your usual lies and falacies, refutated all, you may think that was enough to forget the debate,,,, error..
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 ...to make a crater in a dish of glass beads with an air jet? Oh, that's right, as soon as I pointed you to the accompanying report, NASA-TN-D-5051, which estimated 15.5 metric tons from an "optimum" run, you switched subject to sheets of aluminum being ripped off the descent stage. Every time I knock down one of your silly claims you pop up with another. This is like playing Whack-A-Mole. Give up the moon hoax crap. Find something "useful" to do with your time.
@philwebb59 bla bla bla.. i say how the same rocket who canmove materials of the surface at distance ,altitude, according your lies are unable to make a more and neat clear effect over the moon surface when he jet stream are applied at a half meter distance,, you can repeat ypur lies and your childish and out of context calculations, but your effort to cheat fail ever,
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Seriously, I didn't understand any of that. What I understand is that you've brought up several "irrefutable" claims that I was able to quickly dismiss using the sources you quote from.
If you look at the moving of the Astro-clowns, it's obvious that they don't move according to 1/6 gravity on the Moon.
The acceleration on the Moon is 6 times that on the Earth, with the same force, and it's easy to see that their acceleration is not 6 times of Earth, so simply, they are not on the Moon.
@kennjohnsen It's obvious you're way too smart for me to challenge. I bow to your infinite wisdom. It's too much for me to handle. If only we could all be as knowledgeable on physics and space stuff as you obviously are. Wow!
You're not dumb, you just play dumb, you desperately try to ridicule/belittle the fact of the acceleration on the Moon is 6 times of Earth, like it is 2,5 times less of Earth on Neptun. I can't tell for sure that you do not believe some of your mass rubbish/ excuses.
@kennjohnsen Either you're playing dumb or your teachers failed; I wouldn't stand a chance. A sixth grader would have a better grasp on mass, weight, acceleration, etc. than you seem to. It's really not worth spending my time discussing this with you. It would be like arguing with a two-year old. Find someone else's chain to yank.
@kennjohnsen Force = mass times acceleration, or, F = m times a. Rewritten, acceleration = force divided by mass, or, a = F / m. Do you see g, the symbol for gravity in those equations? Mass is independent of gravity. Lunar gravity is one sixth as strong as on earth. Thus objects on the moon accelerate on the vertical axis one sixth as fast as on earth. Yet for some blindingly idiotic reason, you think that acceleration on the moon should be six times as fast. More...
@GoneToPlaid Moon's surface gravity from first principles: F = G m1 m2 / r^2. Moon mass is 7.3477e22 kg. Equatorial radius = 1738.14 km. G=6.67384e-11 m^3/(kg s^2). Ergo, surface g = F/m = 1.623 m/s^2. Reported value 1.622 m/s^2. Close enough for government work.
To increase it to 6xearth's g, the moon's mass and average density would have to be 36x higher, or over 120 g/cc! No known normal material is anywhere near this dense.
@GoneToPlaid Also, if the moon were 36x heavier, it would have a mass of 36/81 = 44.4% of the earth. I think we would *definitely* notice that every month, don't you? Every day, actually, by the rather large tides...
@kennjohnsen For objects to accelerate six times faster on the moon, measured on the vertical axis, the moon would have to have a gravitational constant which is six times greater than on the surface of the earth. Hmm...So what do you think the moon is made of -- lead or maybe gold?
@kennjohnsen I'll give you some time to cool off. If I let you back on, you have to stop the potty mouth and I'll urge others who have commented here not to call you an idiot, although, I must say, I understand where they are coming from.
@ugod987 Sand and regolith are not the same. Regolith is simply crushed rock. Sand starts out as crushed rock, but after millions of years of weathering, the sharp edges get worn down. Because sand has less cohesion than regolith, it's much easier to blow grains of sand around than regolith.
If there should be a blast crater or not, just think about if there would be a blast crater if it landed in Sahara on Earth. Would there be a blast crater if it landed in Sahara, most definitely, so there should be a blast crater on the Moon, simply as that.
@kennjohnsen #1 Correct result, but for the wrong reason. The problem with "moon hoax philosophy" is that you expect things to act the same way on the moon that you think they should act on earth. They don't. Instead, you have to rely on physics. F = ma everywhere in the universe. No exceptions! The LM with a full DPS tank had a mass of 15k kg. After burning up 90% of its fuel its mass was 7300 kg.
@kennjohnsen Look it up in any physics textbook. 7300 kg on the earth is 7300 kg on the moon is 7300 kg on Jupiter. But the force of gravity is different for each. On the earth the force is about 71,559 newtons - the metric unit of force (not mass). On the moon the force of gravity is only 11,841 N. And on Jupiter it would be about 181,000 N. See how easy that is? Multiply the mass, which is constant, by the local acceleration of gravity to find the actual gravity force.
If you can't see that your claim that 7300 kg on Earth is 7300 kg on the Moon is dumb, then you are dumb, that can hardly be, so you play dumb, because you have a problem.
@kennjohnsen Mass is an inherent property of an object. The mass of a bowling ball is the same if the bowling ball is on earth, on the moon, on Jupiter, on the sun, on a white dwarf, on a neutron star, or at the event horizon of a black hole, or if the bowling ball is floating around in interstellar space with nothing around it. Flunked high school physics, didn't you?
A 7300 kg on the Moon is x 6 on Earth, 43800, what a blast hole that would make on Earth, and what a blast hole it should make on the Moon. But it didn't so it cannot have landed with it's own force, so it was not on the Moon.
@kennjohnsen Okay. Well, there it is... Thank you very much for your comments. I always appreciate hearing what hoax believers think, the sillier the better. If you look down through the comments on this video, you will see that I've been here before, trying to carry on a conversation with people who do not know the difference between mass and force. Been there; done that. Moving on. Good bye.
Mass is weight, and the force to move the sand on the Moon is 1/6 of Earth. I have the word of two learned for that, you play dumb, that's the only "argument" you have on this stupid mass rubbish.
Use your head idiot, or rather try to use the little you have, you are an ordinarylow life, making up excuses, because you have a problem with your Moon scam. On the Moon these astro-clowns had the same size, but did not weight the same as on Earth, did they....sure they did but that's because they were on Earth, they never left, dumb-fuck.
Fortunately we do not all share your foul mouthed mentality kid. Millions of documents have been exposed to scientific review for the last 4 decades and no institution anywhere on the planet has questioned the landings. So by your simplistic logic China, N Korea and Russia are also in on the plot.
You do have a crooked metality, and a child of the state. Sure, millions of documents, and millions of scientists, have approved the scam. They make their own scam.
Oh spare us the Child of the State crap for godsake. Did you come up with those words yourself or are they just another brain dead cliche from a hoax site.
So you are saying just about every science institution on the planet are in on a hoax. LOL
What if you found out that NASA had HI DEF LRO images back in 1966? Could you consider that with the photo editing capabilities available today that nothing is real and everything you think you know could indeed be part of one big lie?
Watch my feature titled, 1966 - 1967 Lunar Orbiter Probes High Resolution Maps of the Moon
NASAHOAX 1 month ago
what do you now , ? do you dissapear another month ?repeat the same lies again and again?you try to confuse with misunderstanded calculations? or claim for instructions to your leaders?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA As I said before, I'm always here, Miguel. And the fact that you don't understand what I've said (or don't want to understand what I've said) doesn't mean that anything I've said is a lie. If you refuse to "believe" definitions and formulas, then it's your problem, not mine.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 is very clear when you evade give an answer on this basic question, you limitates yourself to repeat the samelies, incongruencies and falling in contradictions or evading the question at all,...like now,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Was there a question in all that?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 pathetic and now you cant find the question... about the absence of crater? remember? inregolith,remember? dust and sand,remember?meters deep.,remember?with the same rocket who rise regolith at altitude but nt at the near distance,remember?the rocket dont shut off since the lem was landed,remember? of course you remember but prefer act as stupid,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 From what I can interpret from that hodgepodge, I think I've addressed each of your questions satisfactorily on several occasions. But, since you weren't paying attention, let's recap, one last time. Listen and try to understand what I say this time, will you?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Absence of a crater? What's your question exactly? Are you asking me why there isn't a crater under the LM? Look down through the comments to this video. How many times did I say there wasn't a crater? Zero. How many times did I say that photos show there is a six-inch depression under Antares carved out by her DPS engine? Several. How many times did I say that that DPS engine eroded away 8 metric tons of regolith? Several.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 finally you admit far from your former opinion , of instant disipation of the thurst or not consider the jet as a eroding flux than a column,see your video, you dont sustain mor this assets, the remaining question is the regolith,ac cording nasa is meters deep not eroding resist material, mix of dust and sand... but the photos show a different material,, dust over hard eroding resist material...what do you say about this ?or nasa lies defining the moon regolith?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA iremember how you try the last time to explain how the terrible pressure of the centimeters layer of dust, in moon gravity, firmly packed the underlayer making this eroding resist.you want to say the same lie now?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Terrible pressure? I'm sure I did not use those words. The deeper you go, the more firmly packed the regolith becomes. The deeper you go, the more firmly the grains "lock" together. If you don't believe me on that, you don't believe science. You don't believe common sense. You're not going to have fluffy powder burried meters below the surface. It's going to be hard packed. Prove me wrong. Don't just sit there and call me a liar; prove me wrong.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I finally admit what? I said there was 8 metric tons of material carved out of a 6-inch bowl under Antaries. I've said that countless times, so what is it you think I "finally admitted?"
As far as your "remaining question" about regolith, I wish I understood what you're asking. It sounds like you believe regolith is homogenous over the lunar surface. It is not. It varies in depth and density.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 In 1968, Quaide and Oberbeck estimated 1 to 6 m and 1 to 16 m from lunar orbiter photos. Data from the Surveyor landers lead to estimates anywhere from 2 to 15 cm up to 8 to 10 m. Seismic experiments left behind at the Apollo landing sites indicate the regolith depth in non-mare sites is 8.5m (Apollo 14) and 12.2m (Apollo 16) and 4m or 7 to 12 m (depending on the model) at the Apollo 17 mare site. Under the regolith is rubble. Under that is probably vesicular basalt.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #3 How big should the crater be? You never say, but my numbers (6-inch bowl) are very close to Saxton's numbers (7-inch bowl), which I didn't even know about until you brought his report to my attention a year ago.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #4 Then, a model resulting from the 1966 LM jet erosion experiment (NASA-TN-D-5051), which you also brought to my attention, showed that if the LM continued to fire its engine for five seconds after touchdown, the exhaust might displace 15.5 metric tons of regolith. Antaries shutdown its engine 0.2 seconds BEFORE touchdown, so my estimate of 8 metric tons from the photographs is consistent with Land and Scholl's model. Is there another report you want to bring to my attention?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #5 What exactly are you trying to ask when you say "regolith? dust and sand? meters deep?" These are words with question marks after them. They are not questions. I have no idea at all on how to interpret what these words and question marks mean. "Albatross? Halliburton? Chappaquiddick?" There, answer that.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #6 All I can say is that regolith and sand are not alike. Regolith is more cohesive due to its shape and size. It's also held together by electrostatic attraction. Sand is not. And, the deeper you go into the regolith, the more packed it gets and the harder it is to make it move. Remember the difficulty the astronauts had getting their flags planted? If it's so easy to cut into regolith, why didn't the flag poles just slide in like butter?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #7 "same rocket who rise regolith at altitude but nt at the near distance." Dear God, I think I understand what you said this time. If so, I'm a genius. I think you're asking why the DPS engine could create a dust storm while it was well above the surface, yet it couldn't dig a several-meters-deep crater when it was only inches from the ground.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #8 Answer: The LM began kicking up "dust" during the last 30 to 40 feet of descent. The lower they got - the more dust they kicked up and they continued to kick up dust until they turned off the DPS engine. In the last few seconds of descent, Apollo 14 kicked up 8 metric tons of regolith from directly under the LM.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 t this "dust" is precisely the REGOLITH!! METERS DEEP REGOLITH!according nasa texts.The lower they got - the more dust(REGOLITH) they kicked up and they continued to kick up dust (REGOLITH)until they turned off the DPS engine... WELL!! .. but WHERE ARE THE CRATER????
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 8 metric tons of regolith carved out of a 6-inch bowl. There's your crater, Miguel. A crater consistent with all the "irrefutable" evidence you've thrown at me to date. You got any more secret weapons up your sleeves? Do you have yet another NASA report that proves there should be a crater under the LM?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Which brings another question to mind. Why, do you suppose, would NASA publish data that proved they faked the Apollo missions? Why would they make "the truth" public when a complete idot could put two-and-two together and figure out there their data indicates there should be a crater? A massive crater at that. One that's meters-deep. Why would they put such information out there? I don't expect you to answer that; it would cause you to have to think, but it's a good question.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #9 This should give you an idea of how quickly the exhaust expands and "vanishes" into the vacuum of space. Exhaust was leaving the engine nozzle with 13k N of force, yet it had no visible effect on the lunar surface at altitudes above 30 to 40 ft.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 THe efect of the rocket in the vaccum are well showed in the video of the ascent module ripping the aluminium of the lem landed inmoon and in the landing video showing how at distance the rocket rise regolith of the moon shadowing the landing procedure,may be you want to agree that in the moon in vaccum the forces efect are proportionals to the square of the distance than inverse proportionals as the rest of universe,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I'm done on this one. Answered it too many times already. You just keep repeating yourself. We both know the APS engine blew taped-down foil off the launch pad, not aluminum. The rest of that, I really didn't understand, but it sounds like your "kicking up dust at a distance, yet not digging a meters-deep crater" question, which I've already answered.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 if you think thata your falacious theory of the underlayer of dust and sand firmly packed of the enormous pressure of the thin layer of dust in moon gravity, magically do this underlayer erotion resist? well you are very wrong..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 But, just for fun, I'll return to an old question of mine... How deep should the crater be? I've shown all my cards. I've nothing up my sleeves. Come on, give the ol' do-or-die. How deep should it be? How many metric tons of material of regolith should the DPS engine be able to dig out of that crater? Sadly, we both know, you cannot answer any of my questions. You'll have all kinds of excuses why you can't do the math, yet my math is "lies and fallacies." Poor, poor Miguel.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 is very clear you have nothing in your sleeves and nothing in your video too,hahahaha
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #10 "the rocket dont shut off since the lem was landed." Oops! Genius that I am, you lost me on that one. Are you saying that they didn't shut off the engine after they landed? Why on earth wouldn't they? Err? Why on the moon wouldn't they? What purpose would be served by leaving the engine on after they landed? I don't understand. On the later H-type missions, it would actually be dangerous to leave the engine running. What are you smoking, Miguel?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 the rocket was off when thw module was landed, not before, not instantly the module was landing near the vertical several seconds rising material at more distance than the minimum... you know very well this fact but prefere play like a fool.o f course VERY DIFFERENT TO THE CHILDISH ANIMATION YOU SHOW IN THIS RIDICULE VIDEO
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Yes, generally the DPS engine was shut off shortly after the contact probes registered a hit and before the landing pads touched.
Mission Shutdown (seconds before TD)
Apollo 11 0.0
Apollo 12 1.3
Apollo 14 0.2
Apollo 15 2.7
Apollo 16 0.7
Apollo 17 0.5
Them's the facts, Miguel. Read 'em and weep. Or, just ignore them facts as you usually do. Whatever... (As if I actually expect you to understand anything, for a change.)
BTW, the LM also moved horizontally while landing.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 he said "Contact light!". Three seconds later, Eagle landed and Armstrong said "Shutdown". Aldrin immediately said "Okay, engine stop. between contact light to landing spent 3 seconds of the rocket actuating over the regolith nearing more and more, 170 cm in 3 sec...... 2kmh very slow descent ,more time to act the rocket over the regolith.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #11 Each mission was unique. Armstrong shutdown his DPS engine at touchdown, which was later than any of the other landings. At the other end, Scott shut off his engine early and fell the final 2.7 seconds, damaging the engine nozzle in the process. The later they shutoff the engine the more material you would expect to be eroded away and IF they had left the engine running for many seconds after touchdown, you might expect to see a sizable amount of regolith eroded away.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 "Armstrong shutdown his DPS engine at touchdown " after the touchdown,not instantly....many seconds is an arbitrary asset..the lem was not put off over the landing site and started only when was landed the lem was descent near vertical several seconds before.and for you this force this jet stream cant make any eefct over the regolith... absurd.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 Yes, at touchdown. 0.0 seconds before TD. 0.0 seconds after TD. Whichever way you want to look at it. So, are you going to try to prove Apollos 12-17 should have dug a crater with what you can scrounge up from aulis (.) com about Apollo 11? There was more than one mission, you know. There were six landings; all unique in some respects.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 So, answer me this: How many seconds would they have to run their engines after landing to dig a 1-meter crater? How about a two-meter crater? How about a crater so big that they would fall in and never get out?
I don't really expect you to answer any of these questions. It's not your style. Instead, you'll come back with "What about being able to kick up dust from a distance and not being able to dig a crater in regolith?" You're like an old boxer, Miguel. I see 'em coming.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 how deep must erode a rocket jet at near distance over dust and sand,,,...? how deep? the dust and sand can resist the eroding action? or fly far expelled in the vacuum?is a rocket jet like this unable to affect a deep pile of dust and sand'?dust and sand have the resistance of concrete?this is the today concept of regolith?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 for you your question have only to ways to answer by the precisely measure or the complete denial of all the notions, logical, facts, videos ,only means to you to say " yes sir" according with all of the nasa version.. h ow the same rocket can kick up dust from a distance and cant dig a crater in regolith?this is difficult question to you?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
aacording your lies the same rocket who is capable to affect the dust and sand , the meters deep regolith surface of the moon,at more distance than the minimum, the same rocket CANT make more over the same surface than a leaves blower is "logical thinking for you"..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I think you're referring to the "pressure" thing. Force, not pressure, is what moves things. Pressure is a rate, pressure per area. For example, half the force over one-tenth the area gives five-times more pressure over that area.
philwebb59 1 month ago
explain how " cohession" for you means " erosion resist" nearly hard rock. or explain how for you the regolith layer is only centimeters deep-
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I never said the regolith was only centimeters deep. I said there is evidence from the photos that the DPS engine eroded away a few centimeters of regolith during the lunar landings.
philwebb59 1 month ago
well barnum web try to explain to us how the rocket of the lem cant make a crater in a meters deep sand an dust soil but a less powerfull rocket like the ascent module can tear the protective shield on top the lem when take off? try
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again -- last time -- landing at 30% throttle, the DPS engine put out about 13000 N. On take off, the APS engine put out 16000 N. That means the ascent engine ran at 25% more thrust than the descent engine. The stuff that the exhaust from the APS engine ripped off the launch platform was blankets of foil. Google "Lunar Module Assembly Photos" (include the quote marks) and look at the photos at myspacemuseum (.) com. No more on this subject.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 , to landing at constant speed the thurst are the same as the lem weight.the lem was constructed in aluminium,and the top of the lem is a shield to protect the rocket fuel tanks.see th schematics and plans of grumman the lem fabricant,before to attempt to lie, aluminium is very different with a meters deep of soil mix of dust and sand.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA
You still don't know much, do you?
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 i dont know alot of things, but the few i knew are very well knowed and logically used by me..do you wantsay something about the questions and contradictions of barnum webb?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA
"i dont know alot of things"
- 1. Learn how to write English.
- 2. Stop spamming this video with utter nonsense.
- 3. Why do you suppose there isn't a REAL expert or credentialed person anywhere in the world who would agree with your theories? When was the last time you saw amateur, semi-educated, wannabe conspiracy theorists overthrow the entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 well , indeed the person who i ask for answers, read very well my bad english, your opinion is irrelevant,spam is an adjective , but you prefer dont answerr than put adjectives,, and third, expert?AGREE? PLEASE, authority falacies now? hahaha i expose reasons, refer to videos , photos and publica data, and generally im refering to nasa quotes,bla bla bla, more adjectives " semieducated" wannabe consp..."etcetc,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA
Tell me honestly, are you some kind of Spanish Awe130?
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 Tell me honestly an answer , logical, reasonable answer to the simple question,, you cant hahahahahaha
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA You do realize you left that comment to Rob that time. I'm Phil. Rob is Rob. I know it's kind of hard to tell us apart sometimes. Seeing how all propaganis look alike. But, I'm the one you're harping on about not answering questions. At least, I think I am. Maybe that's Rob. I don't know. I'd ask you who's who, but you'd probably just shoot back with another silly question.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
Wow... having 'fun' with Miguel? Reading this all is like watching a forensic detective in a kindergarten explaining about the genetic information carried by DNA segments and the difference between an evidence sample and a reference sample.
I'm afraid poor Miguel here is hopelessly out of his depth. And he's unable to hide behind his basic knowledge of English.
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 and certainly you dont hide your ignorance of the theme .is very clear you dont have to say nothing obout it, and your tactics of shame from your childhhod only work over people like you..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA
Notantible always capicha nowhre cratering over 9 incheffecting jparlez nothing loworbiting power firsting only mio fronera solida instantly antennae invaccuume PHil waswas forced supporing to find motor of the lunarenthe lem was lifttoff cant producero effects sand and nevere the same than the advertiso delibrantee near distance must be more i truly find calculatives no where.
so yuo
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 may be you think you be a comedian?well......return to the school .. some day,, logical advise.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@Rob260259 What? Rob? Is that you? Are you feeling well today, bud?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 and finally you choose the way of hide yourself behind spam.. hahahahaha
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@philwebb59 and finaly remaining adjective like call silly questions to a question you CANT ANSWER.AND IS A SIMPLE QUESTION...for sillys arguments and falacies is enough with this garbage that you call "video".
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Spam is an adjective? Maybe in Portuguese, but in English it's a noun or a verb. You can for an adjective by adding an appropriate suffix. For example: "Spam-like" would be an adjective. "Spamly" isn't a word, so stay away from it.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 qualify the question when an answer is required, only qualify is reduce to say adjectives,,, your attitude is adjestive then sustantive,, answer the question dont put useless adjectives.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA "Adjestive" and "sustantive" are not English words. They're not even close enough to English words for me to even guess what you're talking about.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@Rob260259 jajajathe entire planet's academic, journalistic, and technological consensus?"""entire planet""more falacies falacie of number,,,oh the mayority,,acording you only,,acording you , all MUST!! FOLLOW THE MAYORITY AHAHAHAH well this attitude may be confortable to you in order to not think, but im not confortable in this parasite unminded attitude,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA
"jajaja"
- Do you use that fantasy for Russian as well?
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 and cant answer thw hahahah question again hahahah you cant only say uselles coments
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again, I think that comment should have been directed at me. I'm the one who you accuse of not being able to answer questions, while you have demonstrated time and time again that you are the only one here incapable of answering questions. "Oh! It's to hard to figure out how deep a crater should be. It makes my brain hurt." Buck up, Miguel. Show us something new. Answer just one question put to you. How big should the crater under the LM be?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 and acuse precisely the same of you are doing, evade asking and lying , thats have a name cinism. i dont answer this question in the same form i dont answer how deep go a bullet in your brain fired at near distance but i may say if the shoot was vertically over surface ,you have a hole surely .
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 but in this case you surely dont be surprised when the bullet dont make over you nothing more a bruise..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@philwebb59
generalmente es este chico un tonto culo alleem pero extraños comentarios poco probable prestar atención un poco a su soledad que parece causada principalmente por una increíblemente profunda desconfianza en la humanidad en General y los gobiernos en particular.
Rob260259 1 month ago
@Rob260259 Okay? I see your point. Our friend Miguel is deeply disturbed and probably paranoid to boot. He was good practice for me though. I seldom go in the trenches and argue with these nuts like you do. It was fun for a while, but I'm really getting board with him now. I was hoping he would have brought up another NASA report, but I think he's exhausted his sources.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
Yup. Miguel is 'boaring'; ....hahaha. He contaminated you Phil.
Hahaaa.
Cheers.
Rob260259 1 month ago
@philwebb59 pure giberish and more adjectives, and seudo psicologycal coment,,wel if you are glad to pretend be a phisic ,now pretend be a therapist,,hahaha.and 2 minutes ago pretend be carmen miranda.hahahaa
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA It's been fun, but I'm off this merry-go-round. Ciao, Miguel.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 may be was fun for you evade to ask?jjaj ciao again like a month ago..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@philwebb59 and when your lies and falacies dont work all the funny of your campaign disapears..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA if nasa say and show a photo of your bruise you admit this as true, the hole in your head? well its not important for you,, only a lie of conspirators.. may be the bullet remains ricocheting inside your head. or your head sudennly be bullet proof hard rock firmly packed,,hahahaa
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Eu não estou respondendo anymore até que você responda a minhas perguntas.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 evasive once more time,,,and dancing the samba,,, but cant answering a simple question,,,,,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Who's not thinking? You've demonstrated repeatedly that you are not thinking clearly. As soon as you see "proof" that you're wrong, you change to another claim. How many more silly claims do you have in your bag, Miguel.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 im concentrated in the same simple question ...and repeat and repeat only to make more noticeable how evasive are you hahaha. the question is everr the same and your silence is evidence of you CANT ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION.or maybe the question is not clear enough for you?or you dont find in the web the answer, thinking required..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA What question have I not answered? Tell me, plain and simple.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Your not being able to understand simple physics is not a contradiction on my part. So far, every "irrefutable source" that you have used to support your claims has backfired on you. You ought to stop before you dig yourself in any deeper.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 bla bla bla, you never refutate nothing but as now, evade, try to distract an go to the limbs..and of course finally claim you do make that you dont do. you evade answer with logical and reason and without contradict the nasa papers and concepts, or nasa videos,,and photos,, you are "reasonrproof" only repeats and repeats the same and the same,covering your falcies with numbers, but in absense of reasonable thinking,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I claim I do what I don't do? What? I have no idea what you're saying. The fact that you don't understand me has little to do with whether I do what I say I do, if that makes any sense at all. I evade answers with logic ? and reason? I answer your silly questions with logic and reason. And, without contradicting ? NASA papers, etc.? So far, none of the NASA papers, etc. that you bring up have done you any good. Every time, you manage to shoot your self in the foot.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 is very clear you cant answer the simple question puting contradictory falacies is not enough and dont qualify as an answer the question is very simple the regolith is a mix of dust and sand meters deep , not erotion resist material as demosntrated for the landing video, but whenthe lem is over the moon ,very near, the regolith is not more dust an sand, instead than dust over a erotion resist material as showed in the photos of moon from nasa,,, what happens?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 Ah! That's more like it. Sad, pathetic musings from a desperate hoax cultist. Regolith is not a mixture of dust and sand. It's crushed rock. It's more primitive than sand. Sand is unique to earth. Each grain of sand has been worn down -- smoothed -- due to exposure to weather and water. Regolith clings. It sticks together due to its sharp flat faces and electrostatic attraction.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Answer me, Miguel. If the LM can begin to kick up dust between 30 and 40 ft, then how deep a crater should it dig if the nozzle is only 16-inches from the lunar surface? 6-inches from the lunar surface? You think there should be a noticeable crater, so how big is noticeable? Tell me how big the crater should be, so that I may believe. Teach me, Obi-Wan.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 an inpercetible subtle depression of lessthan15 cm is a crater for you?is enough effect of a jet stream enough power to tears aluminiumin bits? how explain this jet cant produce more effect over the same dust and sand than the showed?at this point youcant denied thatthe jet effect at near distance must be more noticeable, think anotherthing is ilogical...
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 you are retracting over several points gradually. first, only consider the jet as a solid column,the absurd theory of the instantly and magically dissipation of thurst invaccuum,you wasforced to admit the engine of apollo 11was shut whenthe lem was landed,an with this leave apart seudo arguments the correspondent falacious " calculations"
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 you wasforced to admit that the moon regolith is dust and sand meters deep and your claim for "cohession" isnnot enough to make dust and sand erotion resist,..you dont more sustain the absurd of the soil packed by the enormous force of a thin layer of dust..question? when you admit that your video, this video is only a frustrated attempt to lie fullfilled with lies packed in seudo scientific style?
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA I'm not responding to you anymore until you answer the questions I proposed to you.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 i try to dig on your mind but is hard rock as the soil showed in the videos and photos of nasa,,very different to the acepted,and writed by nasa , concept of regolith,dont care about me,indeed try to find deep in your falacius mind , dont leave to me to any deep.never,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA If you mean I don't change my mind, you're right. My message has been very clear and consistent. You, on the other hand, appear to be dancing all over the place. Every I smack down one of your nonsense claims, you make another, equally nonsensical one. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of what you said. Wish I understood pigeon English. We might fair better if you used an online translator.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 very clear falacies and only consistent with the capaign of lies you do some time ago,your MESSAGE is dont question, dont think , all is right, but you cant answer or solve the contradiction,,or explain the absence of crater,,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA "the lem was constructed in aluminium" and on top of that aluminum was a thermal blanket. Did you not look at the pictures? They taped the foil to the body of the descent stage -- to the launch deck and to all sides. Did You Not Look At The Pictures? The aluminum stayed put; the gold foil blew off. DID YOU NOT LOOK AT THE PICTURES? I am not going to repeat myself on this subject again. I can't make you open your eyes and look at the pictures, but I will ignore your silly dribble.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA BTW, an empty (except for fuel) ascent stage weighed 4,700 kg X 9.81 m/s2 = 46,100 N on earth. That means that on earth it pushed down with 46,100 N of force while "at rest." It produced 16,000 N thrust when lifting off from the moon. That's one-third the force it exerted on the descent stage when it was "at rest" on earth. If 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage at liftoff, then 46,000 N should have crumpled it before it left the earth. Whack, whack.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 If 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage at liftoff, then 46,000 N should have ..a more impact over the dust and sand soil, the regolith,, meters deep dust and sand,, thats the fact your numbers areunable to denied,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. IF -- BIG IF -- 16,000 N could rip sheets of aluminum off the descent stage during liftoff from the moon, then why didn't 46,000 N, the force the ascent stage exerted on the descent stage while "at rest" on the earth, crumple the descent stage before it left the earth? In other words, if the DS is so flimsy that it flies apart at 16k N, then why doesn't it fall apart with 46k N, three-times more force?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 the same stupidity,, is flimsy the DS¿?is light weight but not flimsy ,tought and light as an airplane, is the ascent module ,as the video of moon lift off,who tears of the descent stage top bits of aluminium of this strcuture expelled radially,as see in the video,.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Bits of aluminum? You think the aluminum sheets come apart? They're welded, dear. You think that the aluminum sheets would tear apart and pieces would break off with 16k N of force? Then why didn't the descent stage break and fall apart on earth when they placed the ascent stage on top of her? Answer that question. Gold foil blew off the launch deck. Gold foil held on by tape. You agree there was foil taped on the platform, don't you. Shouldn't that blow off first?
philwebb59 1 month ago
well....... im back again hahahahaa
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Not unlike a bad penny, I might add. What "new" evidence of wrongdoing might you be bringing with you this time?
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 not new but the same you never can refutate...hahaha,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I think you mean "refute" and yes I can. You've not come up with one credible argument yet. What ever happened to J. A. Saxton's irrefutable report? In 1966 he estimated there would be a 7-inch deep bowl under the LM. From the photos, I estimated a 6-inch bowl carved out under Antares (Apollo 14), 8 metric tons of regolith. You totally disappeared for a year after that. What about that irrefutable NASA video showing how easy it was...
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 you are unable to explain how the lem at far altitude, rise materials of the ground, dust and sandm regolith in resume.. but the same rocket with the same thurst at the near distanc of the module landed, as in apollo 11m ission, teh same rocket only wips dust of a several erotion resist ground surface inconsistent with the definition of moon regolith...
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Again, I couldn't grasp the message you are trying so desperately to convey. Perhaps if you sent your questions or comments to Rob, he could translate them for me.
All I can figure is that you're saying they used the same "rocket" for both ascent and descent. Nothing could be more wrong, my friend. The descent engine was inside the descent stage. The ascent engine is inside the ascent stage. Also, "sand" as we are familiar with on earth, and regolith are not the same.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 no stupid, falacius stupid, the same rocket who before the touchdown rise materials of the moon soil , the lem rocket,this same rocket who in the near distance are not able to afect the meters deep regolith before afected. well is not the same sand and regolith as is not the same "cohession" of " firmly packed" ( firmily packed for what?) than erotion resist,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA You're repeating yourself, again. I just answered the "same engine" argument in #7 above. But, look at it this way: When the DPS engine began kicking up dust, it was light at first and gradually increased as they descended from 30 to 40 ft down to about 6 ft. They were also moving horizontally during the descent. So, they really were not over their landing site until the last few seconds. Kicking up dust at 40 ft takes considerably less force than drilling a meters-deep crater.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA After looking back on that strafing episode, the one-and-only thing I want to hear from you is your answer as to how the APS engine exhaust can rip welded aluminum panels apart, even rip chunks of aluminum off the panels, yet not affect the gold foil taped to the surface of those aluminum panels. Or, put another way, how can 16k N rip aluminum panels to shreds on the moon, yet on earth the descent stage doesn't even budge with 46k N pushing down on it from the ascent stage.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 falacious like er, all the necesari to not answer a simple question, but i f you cant....only remains for youtry to concentrate the attention in the aluminized mylar foil....respect the regolith ,nothing to say,,or how the lem rocket acts over the regolith at more distance than the landing, nothing, how at near distance the regolith remains unafected nothing,, barnum web the evasive lier of ever.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #1 I asked you how the APS engine exhaust ripped apart aluminum panels without touching the thermal blanket that was taped to them. I asked you how 16k N of force could rip and mangle the launch platform when 46k N does not. In reply you ask why I'm so concerned about the aluminized Mylar film. Who's avoiding the question? I've answered all your questions whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 Anyone can glance up and down these comments and see how many times I've actually answered all your questions at least once, and yet you have never answered one of mine. Shame on you, Miguel.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 you may think that your disappearing of one month when you was depleted of your usual lies and falacies, refutated all, you may think that was enough to forget the debate,,,, error..
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA What? I'm always here. This is my video. I don't "disappear."
philwebb59 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA #2 ...to make a crater in a dish of glass beads with an air jet? Oh, that's right, as soon as I pointed you to the accompanying report, NASA-TN-D-5051, which estimated 15.5 metric tons from an "optimum" run, you switched subject to sheets of aluminum being ripped off the descent stage. Every time I knock down one of your silly claims you pop up with another. This is like playing Whack-A-Mole. Give up the moon hoax crap. Find something "useful" to do with your time.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59 bla bla bla.. i say how the same rocket who canmove materials of the surface at distance ,altitude, according your lies are unable to make a more and neat clear effect over the moon surface when he jet stream are applied at a half meter distance,, you can repeat ypur lies and your childish and out of context calculations, but your effort to cheat fail ever,
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 month ago
@MIGUEL2005LIMA Seriously, I didn't understand any of that. What I understand is that you've brought up several "irrefutable" claims that I was able to quickly dismiss using the sources you quote from.
philwebb59 1 month ago
Hey there are facts in this. Moons hoax believers don't like facts, nor could they fathom them.
redshift40 1 month ago
If you look at the moving of the Astro-clowns, it's obvious that they don't move according to 1/6 gravity on the Moon.
The acceleration on the Moon is 6 times that on the Earth, with the same force, and it's easy to see that their acceleration is not 6 times of Earth, so simply, they are not on the Moon.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen It's obvious you're way too smart for me to challenge. I bow to your infinite wisdom. It's too much for me to handle. If only we could all be as knowledgeable on physics and space stuff as you obviously are. Wow!
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
You're not dumb, you just play dumb, you desperately try to ridicule/belittle the fact of the acceleration on the Moon is 6 times of Earth, like it is 2,5 times less of Earth on Neptun. I can't tell for sure that you do not believe some of your mass rubbish/ excuses.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Either you're playing dumb or your teachers failed; I wouldn't stand a chance. A sixth grader would have a better grasp on mass, weight, acceleration, etc. than you seem to. It's really not worth spending my time discussing this with you. It would be like arguing with a two-year old. Find someone else's chain to yank.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
Well, you definitely play dumb, by overhearing the post from those two so-callrd learned, this shows what you are about.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen "So called?" Even you don't give them much respect.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Force = mass times acceleration, or, F = m times a. Rewritten, acceleration = force divided by mass, or, a = F / m. Do you see g, the symbol for gravity in those equations? Mass is independent of gravity. Lunar gravity is one sixth as strong as on earth. Thus objects on the moon accelerate on the vertical axis one sixth as fast as on earth. Yet for some blindingly idiotic reason, you think that acceleration on the moon should be six times as fast. More...
GoneToPlaid 1 month ago
@GoneToPlaid Moon's surface gravity from first principles: F = G m1 m2 / r^2. Moon mass is 7.3477e22 kg. Equatorial radius = 1738.14 km. G=6.67384e-11 m^3/(kg s^2). Ergo, surface g = F/m = 1.623 m/s^2. Reported value 1.622 m/s^2. Close enough for government work.
To increase it to 6xearth's g, the moon's mass and average density would have to be 36x higher, or over 120 g/cc! No known normal material is anywhere near this dense.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
@GoneToPlaid Also, if the moon were 36x heavier, it would have a mass of 36/81 = 44.4% of the earth. I think we would *definitely* notice that every month, don't you? Every day, actually, by the rather large tides...
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen For objects to accelerate six times faster on the moon, measured on the vertical axis, the moon would have to have a gravitational constant which is six times greater than on the surface of the earth. Hmm...So what do you think the moon is made of -- lead or maybe gold?
GoneToPlaid 1 month ago
@GoneToPlaid
Read my post, shithead from these two learned, and learn how dumb you are. And don't respond to my post.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Yellow card. I'm really looking for an excuse to block you, KJ. Don't make it easy for me. Cut the insults and foul language.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
Yes, I know you can't take it, does that goes for those there insult me.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen I'll give you some time to cool off. If I let you back on, you have to stop the potty mouth and I'll urge others who have commented here not to call you an idiot, although, I must say, I understand where they are coming from.
philwebb59 1 month ago
No
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
yes no crater no dust no crater no dust no crater no dust
ugod987 1 month ago
@ugod987 Sand and regolith are not the same. Regolith is simply crushed rock. Sand starts out as crushed rock, but after millions of years of weathering, the sharp edges get worn down. Because sand has less cohesion than regolith, it's much easier to blow grains of sand around than regolith.
philwebb59 1 month ago
If there should be a blast crater or not, just think about if there would be a blast crater if it landed in Sahara on Earth. Would there be a blast crater if it landed in Sahara, most definitely, so there should be a blast crater on the Moon, simply as that.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen #1 Correct result, but for the wrong reason. The problem with "moon hoax philosophy" is that you expect things to act the same way on the moon that you think they should act on earth. They don't. Instead, you have to rely on physics. F = ma everywhere in the universe. No exceptions! The LM with a full DPS tank had a mass of 15k kg. After burning up 90% of its fuel its mass was 7300 kg.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
7300 kg on the Moon, x 6 on the Earth, the result are the same.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen 7300 kg on the Moon is 7300 kg on the Earth. Mass is constant throughout the universe.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
So 7300 kg is 7300 kg on Jupiter, you're playing dumb. But that does not help your Moon lie.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Look it up in any physics textbook. 7300 kg on the earth is 7300 kg on the moon is 7300 kg on Jupiter. But the force of gravity is different for each. On the earth the force is about 71,559 newtons - the metric unit of force (not mass). On the moon the force of gravity is only 11,841 N. And on Jupiter it would be about 181,000 N. See how easy that is? Multiply the mass, which is constant, by the local acceleration of gravity to find the actual gravity force.
ApolloWasReal 1 month ago
@philwebb59
If you can't see that your claim that 7300 kg on Earth is 7300 kg on the Moon is dumb, then you are dumb, that can hardly be, so you play dumb, because you have a problem.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Mass is an inherent property of an object. The mass of a bowling ball is the same if the bowling ball is on earth, on the moon, on Jupiter, on the sun, on a white dwarf, on a neutron star, or at the event horizon of a black hole, or if the bowling ball is floating around in interstellar space with nothing around it. Flunked high school physics, didn't you?
GoneToPlaid 1 month ago
@philwebb59
A 7300 kg on the Moon is x 6 on Earth, 43800, what a blast hole that would make on Earth, and what a blast hole it should make on the Moon. But it didn't so it cannot have landed with it's own force, so it was not on the Moon.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen Okay. Well, there it is... Thank you very much for your comments. I always appreciate hearing what hoax believers think, the sillier the better. If you look down through the comments on this video, you will see that I've been here before, trying to carry on a conversation with people who do not know the difference between mass and force. Been there; done that. Moving on. Good bye.
philwebb59 1 month ago
@philwebb59
Mass is weight, and the force to move the sand on the Moon is 1/6 of Earth. I have the word of two learned for that, you play dumb, that's the only "argument" you have on this stupid mass rubbish.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
Mass and weight are not the same thing. Did they not teach you anything at school?
TheSpiritof1969 1 month ago
@TheSpiritof1969
It is, show me the Dictionary which says it's not.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
A dictionary is not a science reference idiot.
Google the words 'mass weight gravity' and do a little learning
TheSpiritof1969 1 month ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Use your head idiot, or rather try to use the little you have, you are an ordinarylow life, making up excuses, because you have a problem with your Moon scam. On the Moon these astro-clowns had the same size, but did not weight the same as on Earth, did they....sure they did but that's because they were on Earth, they never left, dumb-fuck.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
Fortunately we do not all share your foul mouthed mentality kid. Millions of documents have been exposed to scientific review for the last 4 decades and no institution anywhere on the planet has questioned the landings. So by your simplistic logic China, N Korea and Russia are also in on the plot.
TheSpiritof1969 1 month ago
@TheSpiritof1969
You do have a crooked metality, and a child of the state. Sure, millions of documents, and millions of scientists, have approved the scam. They make their own scam.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen
Oh spare us the Child of the State crap for godsake. Did you come up with those words yourself or are they just another brain dead cliche from a hoax site.
So you are saying just about every science institution on the planet are in on a hoax. LOL
TheSpiritof1969 1 month ago 2