Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #600 on: May 09, 2020, 04:31:35 PM »
And the effects of radiation are not generally immediately apparent.
My understanding is that they did have some shielding and they chose a trajectory which attempted to minimise the exposure.

When the guys die around 80-90 it seems the effects of radiation aren't apparent at all.
It would be a nice story if they chose a trajectory to minimise the exposure, but then how do you explain that Alan Bean (supposedly the fourth astronaut to walk on the Moon) doesn't even know where the Van Allen belts are and believed they are beyond the moon? (see the documentary at 1:11:55). Surely he would have been trained to know where they are if he did go through them and if they had to navigate to minimise the exposure.

The amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to was being monitored. Had it been a lethal dose I wonder whether they would have carried out subsequent missions but Apollo 8 went to the moon and back so I guess those guys were the guinea pigs in that regard.
These guys knew there were risks attached to these missions

Then how do you explain that the pictures supposedly taken on the moon show zero radiation exposure whereas a mere X-ray scan produces graining on pictures? (see 2:29:30 to 2:30:40)

Quote
Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?
I imagine the fact that one is operating in an atmosphere and the other in a vacuum is a factor here. If you check out the video, you can clearly see the effects of the engine starting as stuff is blown by the rocket. But if it was all special effects wouldn't they have added a flame if one "should" be there?

In the documentary this is addressed also, tests of rocket engines in vacuum do show a flame.
It's a pretty weak argument to say that "if it was fake wouldn't they have taken care of everything so that it appears not fake?". If there was no evidence it was fake then you would say there is no evidence. The point is there is evidence it is fake, but they still managed to fool billions of people so their fake was very well done, but not perfect as the evidence shows. You're assuming they did go and from that assumption you're dismissing all the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence objectively. There are damning contradictions in the official story which can't be ignored. You're not seeing your own confirmation bias.

Because the rocket is operating in a vacuum. There may have been a bit of vibration but otherwise if there's no air to pass the sound through you're not going to hear anything. Don't forget the rocket was designed to fire on the moon so only had to lift a 6th of the weight you'd get on earth of a relatively small craft - compared to the Saturn V rockets.

This is addressed in the documentary at 1:27:00. The cabin is pressurized and the engine is right in the middle of it.

Quote
Tracking the craft up to what point?

All the way to the surface :)

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

So lines on a piece of paper is proof that they did go to the moon? While video evidence of astronauts being pulled up by an external force or lunar pictures showing zero graining while they supposedly went through the Van Allen belts isn't proof that they didn't? And if you watch the whole documentary there is plenty more evidence of fakery.

You can bet the Russians were tracking them too, they've never called the US out on the lie.
And at least 2 craft have been able to take good enough quality photos that we can see the Apollo landing sites, one of those being from China. Why are they verifying the US landed on the moon?

If you agree that there is compelling evidence that they didn't go, then indeed the question becomes why are the other space agencies not calling them out on it? If the evidence that they didn't go can't be explained away, then this has to be explained. And the answer is one people don't want to hear, it's one I didn't want to believe until recently, because it seems too big to be true, but consider it with an open mind : all the space agencies are in on it. We will leave the "why" for later, and for now just look at the evidence that they spread lies together.

The ISS is an international collaborative project between five space agencies : NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA and CSA. We get plenty of footage from within and outside the ISS, which is supposedly orbiting Earth. And in that footage there is plenty of evidence that : 1. They lie. 2. CGI trickery is used. 3. The crew are suspended by wires/harnesses or subjected to forces that aren't supposed to be there.

1. In the following video two "astronauts" supposed to be in the ISS clearly lie about being able to see stars, planets and moons during the day. If you claim that they can, other "astronauts" have claimed that all there is is a deep black. This is an obvious contradiction in the official story. A self-contradicting story cannot be true. Watch from 29:40 to 32:50



As other evidence, you may have heard that in order to train for spacewalks, the ISS crew train underwater at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, on an immersed full-scale replica of the ISS. And you know what's interesting? In many spacewalk videos, where they are supposed to be in space, bubbles can be seen moving upwards. See same video above from 24:00 to 25:30. You can find many more examples. In a given shot all bubbles seem to move in the same general direction, just like they would underwater here on Earth. On top of the fact that there aren't supposed to be bubbles appearing like that in space. In absence of an explanation for the existence of these bubbles moving in that way, this is evidence that they lie and fake footage on a grand scale (on top of the evidence found in the moon landing videos and elsewhere).


2. As evidence that the space agencies routinely use CGI in ISS footage, watch same video from 11:27 to 11:47

Then this one at 3:10



Then this one :



There are many other examples.


3. As evidence that the crew are suspended by wires/harnesses, watch the following video at 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55 :



Again there are many other examples.


In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

Objects seen to be suspended as if in zero-G can be simulated too, for instance through augmented reality technology. There is evidence of that as well, see the following video from 11:05 to 13:40 for instance :




As to why they do it, I'll leave that for another post.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 05:00:07 PM by yetitsflat »

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #601 on: May 09, 2020, 06:06:48 PM »
In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

You are making a logical fallacy here.

You are saying because a thing can be done, that is evidence that it's being used in a particular case.

I am right now, holding a roll of duct tape while typing with one hand.

That is proof it can be done.

Therefore, I say you must be doing the same, since I've proven it's possible.

See the flaw?


Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #602 on: May 09, 2020, 06:37:29 PM »
And the effects of radiation are not generally immediately apparent.
My understanding is that they did have some shielding and they chose a trajectory which attempted to minimise the exposure.

When the guys die around 80-90 it seems the effects of radiation aren't apparent at all.
It would be a nice story if they chose a trajectory to minimise the exposure, but then how do you explain that Alan Bean (supposedly the fourth astronaut to walk on the Moon) doesn't even know where the Van Allen belts are and believed they are beyond the moon? (see the documentary at 1:11:55). Surely he would have been trained to know where they are if he did go through them and if they had to navigate to minimise the exposure.

The amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to was being monitored. Had it been a lethal dose I wonder whether they would have carried out subsequent missions but Apollo 8 went to the moon and back so I guess those guys were the guinea pigs in that regard.
These guys knew there were risks attached to these missions

Then how do you explain that the pictures supposedly taken on the moon show zero radiation exposure whereas a mere X-ray scan produces graining on pictures? (see 2:29:30 to 2:30:40)

Quote
Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?
I imagine the fact that one is operating in an atmosphere and the other in a vacuum is a factor here. If you check out the video, you can clearly see the effects of the engine starting as stuff is blown by the rocket. But if it was all special effects wouldn't they have added a flame if one "should" be there?

In the documentary this is addressed also, tests of rocket engines in vacuum do show a flame.
It's a pretty weak argument to say that "if it was fake wouldn't they have taken care of everything so that it appears not fake?". If there was no evidence it was fake then you would say there is no evidence. The point is there is evidence it is fake, but they still managed to fool billions of people so their fake was very well done, but not perfect as the evidence shows. You're assuming they did go and from that assumption you're dismissing all the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence objectively. There are damning contradictions in the official story which can't be ignored. You're not seeing your own confirmation bias.

Because the rocket is operating in a vacuum. There may have been a bit of vibration but otherwise if there's no air to pass the sound through you're not going to hear anything. Don't forget the rocket was designed to fire on the moon so only had to lift a 6th of the weight you'd get on earth of a relatively small craft - compared to the Saturn V rockets.

This is addressed in the documentary at 1:27:00. The cabin is pressurized and the engine is right in the middle of it.

Quote
Tracking the craft up to what point?

All the way to the surface :)

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

So lines on a piece of paper is proof that they did go to the moon? While video evidence of astronauts being pulled up by an external force or lunar pictures showing zero graining while they supposedly went through the Van Allen belts isn't proof that they didn't? And if you watch the whole documentary there is plenty more evidence of fakery.

You can bet the Russians were tracking them too, they've never called the US out on the lie.
And at least 2 craft have been able to take good enough quality photos that we can see the Apollo landing sites, one of those being from China. Why are they verifying the US landed on the moon?

If you agree that there is compelling evidence that they didn't go, then indeed the question becomes why are the other space agencies not calling them out on it? If the evidence that they didn't go can't be explained away, then this has to be explained. And the answer is one people don't want to hear, it's one I didn't want to believe until recently, because it seems too big to be true, but consider it with an open mind : all the space agencies are in on it. We will leave the "why" for later, and for now just look at the evidence that they spread lies together.

The ISS is an international collaborative project between five space agencies : NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA and CSA. We get plenty of footage from within and outside the ISS, which is supposedly orbiting Earth. And in that footage there is plenty of evidence that : 1. They lie. 2. CGI trickery is used. 3. The crew are suspended by wires/harnesses or subjected to forces that aren't supposed to be there.

1. In the following video two "astronauts" supposed to be in the ISS clearly lie about being able to see stars, planets and moons during the day. If you claim that they can, other "astronauts" have claimed that all there is is a deep black. This is an obvious contradiction in the official story. A self-contradicting story cannot be true. Watch from 29:40 to 32:50



As other evidence, you may have heard that in order to train for spacewalks, the ISS crew train underwater at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, on an immersed full-scale replica of the ISS. And you know what's interesting? In many spacewalk videos, where they are supposed to be in space, bubbles can be seen moving upwards. See same video above from 24:00 to 25:30. You can find many more examples. In a given shot all bubbles seem to move in the same general direction, just like they would underwater here on Earth. On top of the fact that there aren't supposed to be bubbles appearing like that in space. In absence of an explanation for the existence of these bubbles moving in that way, this is evidence that they lie and fake footage on a grand scale (on top of the evidence found in the moon landing videos and elsewhere).


2. As evidence that the space agencies routinely use CGI in ISS footage, watch same video from 11:27 to 11:47

Then this one at 3:10



Then this one :



There are many other examples.


3. As evidence that the crew are suspended by wires/harnesses, watch the following video at 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55 :



Again there are many other examples.


In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

Objects seen to be suspended as if in zero-G can be simulated too, for instance through augmented reality technology. There is evidence of that as well, see the following video from 11:05 to 13:40 for instance :




As to why they do it, I'll leave that for another post.
All of these things have been refuted before. The eyes see what it wants to see. I've watched over all of the footage in these videos before and not much much to my surprise, I've never once seen a harness or a wire. I've seen some transitioning between takes which is normal for non-live footage, fades in, fades out etc. You see fade transitions all the time in many videos but it's not proof that the whole video is faked, it's just proof that someone is splicing the footage... No one cares about that. Show me a harness or wire and not just videos of people saying "hey look see! they moved in a way that IMO looks like they'd have a wire on". this is purely opinion and pretty obvious confirmation bias. Also regarding the "bubbles" in space, they're not bubbles, you can look this stuff up. Everything can be explained easily enough if you haven't already made up your mind.

Take a look at the facts... anyone can see the ISS is up there, anyone can listen in to radio transmissions, people have spoken to the astronauts on board the ISS live. Anyone with a telescope and a smart phone can track the ISS and see it. There's a shit ton of footage and none of that footage shows any wires or harnesses holding people up on the ISS. The only "evidence" is people claiming things that aren't bubbles are bubbles and that people are being held up by wires that simply aren't there.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #603 on: May 09, 2020, 06:48:09 PM »


Hi Somerled. Just saw your reply (the posts after came fast) and so wanted to respond.

Isn’t the fuel in the rockets under pressure though? That’s my understanding. But it sounds like you disagree that deflagration could happen in a vacuum?

So when you say the principle of Momentum cannot produce a force, do you mean in general or just in a rocket-vacuum situation?

Because I see two topics here for discussion:

1) deflagration cannot proceed in a vacuum.

2) momentum cannot produce forces.

Both are required to happen for a rocket to work, and so maybe it would be useful to address these separately?

That is, of course, if I understand you right. Do let me know!
[/quote]

Hello BRollin,
1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases. Nicely explained here

 https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .



It's not a long video - 15mins - but it shows the principle . Listen carefully to what he says.
 
2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket . 
 

Offline BRrollin

  • *
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #604 on: May 09, 2020, 07:41:17 PM »


Hi Somerled. Just saw your reply (the posts after came fast) and so wanted to respond.

Isn’t the fuel in the rockets under pressure though? That’s my understanding. But it sounds like you disagree that deflagration could happen in a vacuum?

So when you say the principle of Momentum cannot produce a force, do you mean in general or just in a rocket-vacuum situation?

Because I see two topics here for discussion:

1) deflagration cannot proceed in a vacuum.

2) momentum cannot produce forces.

Both are required to happen for a rocket to work, and so maybe it would be useful to address these separately?

That is, of course, if I understand you right. Do let me know!

Hello BRollin,
1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases. Nicely explained here

 https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .



It's not a long video - 15mins - but it shows the principle . Listen carefully to what he says.
 
2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket .
[/quote]

Okay, I think I’m getting a better understanding of your position.

1. I think I agree with you here. If fuel was exposed to a vacuum then it wouldn’t ignite. So if fuel was ignited before it was exposed the vacuum, then it would still be under pressure, and the chemical reactions could take place?

2. I think in this hypothetical situation, there are forces involved. If I am in outer space, and I throw a heavy object, then the recoil from my throw should push me in the opposite direction. Do you agree with this?

I push on the object with a force, there is an equal and opposite force on my by Newton’s third law. The effect is that both the object and myself now has a momentum. Do you agree?
“This just shows that you don't even understand the basic principle of UA...A projectile that goes up and then down again to an observer on Earth is not accelerating, it is the observer on Earth who accelerates.”

- Parsifal


“I hang out with sane people.”

- totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #605 on: May 09, 2020, 07:51:50 PM »
In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

You are making a logical fallacy here.

You are saying because a thing can be done, that is evidence that it's being used in a particular case.

I am right now, holding a roll of duct tape while typing with one hand.

That is proof it can be done.

Therefore, I say you must be doing the same, since I've proven it's possible.

See the flaw?

The logical fallacy is yours since I didn't say that. "So there is evidence that the space agencies lie" is a consequence of point 1, "evidence that they fake footage" is a consequence of point 2, "evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires" is a consequence of point 3, and "evidence that the wires can be made invisible" is that it's done in movies and magic shows.

I didn't say the fact it's done in movies and magic shows is proof that it's done in the ISS, I merely said it shows that it's possible. Otherwise some of you would have replied something like "we would see the wires if they were there".

However the evidence in point 3 is pretty compelling in itself that there are invisible wires being used.

By the way I will reply to your post in the thread on electromagnetic acceleration when I get the time.


All of these things have been refuted before. The eyes see what it wants to see. I've watched over all of the footage in these videos before and not much much to my surprise, I've never once seen a harness or a wire. I've seen some transitioning between takes which is normal for non-live footage, fades in, fades out etc. You see fade transitions all the time in many videos but it's not proof that the whole video is faked, it's just proof that someone is splicing the footage... No one cares about that. Show me a harness or wire and not just videos of people saying "hey look see! they moved in a way that IMO looks like they'd have a wire on". this is purely opinion and pretty obvious confirmation bias. Also regarding the "bubbles" in space, they're not bubbles, you can look this stuff up. Everything can be explained easily enough if you haven't already made up your mind.

Take a look at the facts... anyone can see the ISS is up there, anyone can listen in to radio transmissions, people have spoken to the astronauts on board the ISS live. Anyone with a telescope and a smart phone can track the ISS and see it. There's a shit ton of footage and none of that footage shows any wires or harnesses holding people up on the ISS. The only "evidence" is people claiming things that aren't bubbles are bubbles and that people are being held up by wires that simply aren't there.

"All of these things have been refuted before", yea right, just like supposedly all the evidence in the documentary American Moon has been refuted before, and yet when I mention specific points from the documentary there are many that go unanswered.

You say you've watched all the footage in these videos before, I sincerely doubt it, but let's say you have, don't watch the whole videos but focus only on the timestamps I have mentioned. I agree that in most such videos there is a lot of confirmation bias (just like there is confirmation bias on your side), however the specific examples I pinpointed are pretty hard to explain away. Why don't you watch the specific ones I mentioned and try to explain them?

In the first video between 11:27 and 11:47, only the man is fading out, not the whole scenery. In the third video (green screen fail), if you take the time to watch and listen to it all, the flags in the background move in a continuous way before, during and after the person is fading in, which shows that the background is a green screen.

In the first video at 00:30 what is he grabbing? At 03:10, how the hell can you explain how she's being pulled up without a harness or wires? At 08:55 how could she be moving that way on her own in zero-G?

How do you explain away the bubbles? What are they? Why are they always moving in the same general direction?

There is something flying up there that we can see, in itself that doesn't show there is anyone in it. Yes people have spoken to the "astronauts" live, that doesn't prove they are actually up there. How the hell do you explain that the two "astronauts" Mike Massimino and Don Pettit claim that they can see many stars, planets, moons and the Magellanic clouds during the day? Seriously look at them and listen to what they say (first video from 29:40 to 32:50, watch the whole segment)


Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #606 on: May 09, 2020, 08:03:53 PM »
1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases.
Well, you source isn't very up to date either ("Jim Clark 2002 (last modified May 2017)") and no longer seriously maintained ("As of July 2016, I am unlikely to add anything new to Chemguide, ...").
But "physical chemistry" probably hasn't changed much since Jim Clark retired.

Nicely explained herehttps://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html
Nicely explained, but not stating what you claim it does.
Where does it say on that page, that the chemical reaction rate decrease to zero in a vacuum? It could also just be slower. 

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .
No, it is not. As the nozzle restricts the flow of the gas, there will be pressure inside the combustion chamber (the chamber is filled faster than gas can escape to the vacuum), i.e. where the chemical reaction takes place.
Even if that where not the case, increased pressure mostly increases the amount of reactant per volume.
It is not required for the reaction, it simply supports it.
And finally, that would not apply to solid fuel rockets.

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .
Indeed you already have, and I have already pointed out, that Cody actually succedes:
If ( and that's a big one)you could start the control burn of fuel ( chemical reaction) in a vacuum you could produce heat .
It's not a big one. Cody has done it in the video you linked to, explicitly saying so himself at 11:20.
At 11:20 he states: "so there you have it. It is very difficult, but possible to burn something in a vacuum" @https://youtu.be/8Cx9mNnky2U?t=680
As you quote Cody as reference, I would hope you accept his findings: It possible to burn something in a vacuum.

2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket .
A force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle.
Also, like totallackey, you would have to explain, where the force, that is present in an atmosphere, disappears to - when everything else si identical in a vacuum.
Apart from the fact, that "free expansion => no work" does not apply, even if did apply, where does the energy created by the exothermic chemical reaction go?

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #607 on: May 09, 2020, 08:38:20 PM »
In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

You are making a logical fallacy here.

You are saying because a thing can be done, that is evidence that it's being used in a particular case.

I am right now, holding a roll of duct tape while typing with one hand.

That is proof it can be done.

Therefore, I say you must be doing the same, since I've proven it's possible.

See the flaw?

The logical fallacy is yours since I didn't say that. "So there is evidence that the space agencies lie" is a consequence of point 1, "evidence that they fake footage" is a consequence of point 2, "evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires" is a consequence of point 3, and "evidence that the wires can be made invisible" is that it's done in movies and magic shows.

I didn't say the fact it's done in movies and magic shows is proof that it's done in the ISS, I merely said it shows that it's possible. Otherwise some of you would have replied something like "we would see the wires if they were there".

However the evidence in point 3 is pretty compelling in itself that there are invisible wires being used.

By the way I will reply to your post in the thread on electromagnetic acceleration when I get the time.

As for your point 1 that astronauts lie, that's not evidence of lying, just a lack of imagination.

A. I can see my yard out my window in the day.

B. I can not see my yard out the window at night with the lights on inside.

So why is it not surprising that they can sometimes see the stars, and sometimes not? They even have special viewing areas that can be covered and darkened to make viewing better. You think the internal environments in the Apollo capsules are exactly the same as in the ISS? Or the same as wearing a heavily reflective space suit helmet? Of course they can see stars in some situations and not others. I can't see stars in the day, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. None of that is evidence of lies at all.

And repeating "it looks like science fiction or a Hollywood movie" 100 times in a row doesn't change the fact he was saying the videos we have no are so amazing it looks like science fiction.

So no, you didn't prove they lie. Far from it, if that's the best evidence that can be provided.

Nobody is debating you on wires because none of us see them, we see a bunch of footage from space with circles over stuff that confused the video maker.

That whole video showed me nothing. Air bubbles? Air bubbles go up, not up AND sideways. Every single example is utter nonsense. I could debunk every one of them if I thought it would do any good.

Point 3?  You mean showing over and over at 03:07 where her jacket sleeve gets caught on the patch on her chest?

Or where the guy goes to reach for the spinning person in case he needs to catch him, then grabs a handhold out of frame? 

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #608 on: May 09, 2020, 08:54:36 PM »
However the evidence in point 3 is pretty compelling in itself that there are invisible wires being used.
In which way?
I looked at the time codes you pointed out in slow motion and if anything, it shows, that the way the people move would be difficult to impossible with a wire harness.
The hand of the guy who supposedly grabs the wire moves totally unhindered, showing that there is no wire impeding his movement even by a fraction. And his movement makes sens in response to the other guy doing acrobatics in front of him.
Finally, looking at the overall body movement, tension and balance: That consistent is with weightlessness and inconsistent with someone suspended in a harness.

You may note, that in many shots the astronauts are not fully shown (often feet/lower legs are not in the picture) so it is much more likely that they're pushing off a foothold (which they tend to maintain for stability) than that they are pulled up by some wires.

And as the guys wondered why in the last scene (and the one before) the heads were tilted "unnaturally" - it is only unnatural, if you don't think about it.
As they're suspended weightlessly at an angle to the person holding the camera, they will naturally tilt their heads to align it (within reason) with the person they are facing; that is what we are used to and being weightless, it is easy to do.
In contrast, if they were suspended by wires, they could hardly keep their heads tilted that way without showing some signs of strain (which they don't).

Could it be, that you are seeing what you want to see, because you're not looking closely enough?

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #609 on: May 09, 2020, 10:56:19 PM »

A. I can see my yard out my window in the day.

B. I can not see my yard out the window at night with the lights on inside.

So why is it not surprising that they can sometimes see the stars, and sometimes not? They even have special viewing areas that can be covered and darkened to make viewing better. You think the internal environments in the Apollo capsules are exactly the same as in the ISS? Or the same as wearing a heavily reflective space suit helmet? Of course they can see stars in some situations and not others. I can't see stars in the day, but it doesn't mean they aren't there. None of that is evidence of lies at all.

Really listen to what they say :

"Whilst in space, have you ever looked away from Earth into the black void?"
*look at each other for several seconds not knowing what to say*
"Yea, yea, all the time, you can see the stars, pretty much all the time you can see the stars"
"There's all the stars there, the cool thing is that you can see it during the day"
"Yea you can and there's more than stars, you can see planets, you can see moons, you see the Magellanic clouds"

Meanwhile Leroy Chiao, who has also been on the ISS (as the official story goes), says :

"When you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're on the Sun side of the orbit, the sunlight washes out all the starlights so you can't see any star just like here on Earth"
"When you look at into deep space away from the Sun it's the darkest black you can imagine"

Michael Collins also claimed he couldn't see any star while in lunar orbit.

So your analogy is completely off the mark. A more correct analogy is :

A. Two guys see their yard out their window during the day including the faintest details.
B. Two other guys see the darkest black you can imagine when they look out their window during the day.

If you don't see the contradiction there then you're full into the confirmation bias you guys keep bringing up.

And repeating "it looks like science fiction or a Hollywood movie" 100 times in a row doesn't change the fact he was saying the videos we have no are so amazing it looks like science fiction.

Don't focus on that part, the timestamp I mentioned begins right after that.

That whole video showed me nothing. Air bubbles? Air bubbles go up, not up AND sideways. Every single example is utter nonsense. I could debunk every one of them if I thought it would do any good.

Please do. You know what? I don't want to be right about all that. I don't want to believe that humanity has been lied to on such a grand scale for decades, centuries or even millennia. I don't want to believe that the people who govern us don't have our best interests at heart, that the stories we're told about who we are and where we come from and our place in the universe are lies, that the mainstream media lie to us on such a scale, I don't want to believe all that because it's easier not to. But I go where the evidence leads me, and unfortunately more and more the evidence leads me to that belief. And I still prefer to face the hard truth rather than swallow easy lies. When I was a kid I wanted to be an astrophysicist. I studied the mainstream fundamental theories of physics in depth. I became an engineer and I worked on satellites. There is stuff I saw there that didn't make sense. And more and more I realized how powerful people conspire against the general population. How the mainstream media spread lies. How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity. For most of my life the idea that men never walked on the moon struck me as far-fetched, as stupid. And yet the evidence is there. Watch the documentary American Moon from start to finish with an open mind, look at the evidence objectively, there are contradictions in the official story that can't be reconciled, that can't be explained away, evidence of lies, deception.

Point 3?  You mean showing over and over at 03:07 where her jacket sleeve gets caught on the patch on her chest?

You're right about that one, I hadn't noticed that.

Or where the guy goes to reach for the spinning person in case he needs to catch him, then grabs a handhold out of frame?

Watch carefully, his hand is not out of the frame when he pulls him back.

How about the one at 9:00? Don't focus on the tilt of her head, that's not the intriguing part. There is a force pulling her to the right, how do you explain that in a zero-G environment?

In the last video I linked, the guy is holding a mic with one hand, then somehow the fingers of his other hand go underneath the fingers of the hand holding the mic. How is that possible without video manipulation? Between 11:15 and 11:30 here :

« Last Edit: May 09, 2020, 11:14:09 PM by yetitsflat »

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #610 on: May 10, 2020, 12:07:09 AM »
If you don't see the contradiction there then you're full into the confirmation bias you guys keep bringing up.

There are two ways of looking at all those conversations you posted.

1. They are all liars who can't keep their stories straight but somehow have fooled the entire world for 50 years.

2. Differences in interior lighting, window materials, orbits, sun position, and eye light sensitivity means people see different things.

Number 2 is the obvious choice for me.

We bring up conformation bias because you see two people look at each other to see who is going to speak, and think that's suspicious behavior indicating a conspiracy.

I do astrophotography as a hobby, I'm well aware of how lighting conditions can make it easier or harder to see stars, as well as how cameras work in general. I am not even slightly surprised two people in the same place can see differently. When I do stargazing it takes a good 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust. One guy looks at a bright light and he's not seeing anything out the windows for a while.

And repeating "it looks like science fiction or a Hollywood movie" 100 times in a row doesn't change the fact he was saying the videos we have no are so amazing it looks like science fiction.
Don't focus on that part, the timestamp I mentioned begins right after that.

I'm not sure what timestamp.  I'm assuming "Hollywood Basement" but there are so many videos I'm losing track.

#3 0:20 Guy in the back left puts his hand out as he sees a foot coming at him, then reaches for something offscreen.
#3 0:36 I see the guy reaching behind him to gold on to a black curved bar.

What do you see?

#3 8:55 I see a woman floating in space, occasionally grabbing things and... her head is tilted to look at the camera? What is weird about wanting to have your face right side up for the camera?

What do you see wrong?

That whole video showed me nothing. Air bubbles? Air bubbles go up, not up AND sideways. Every single example is utter nonsense. I could debunk every one of them if I thought it would do any good.

Please do. You know what? I don't want to be right about all that. I don't want to believe that humanity has been lied to on such a grand scale for decades, centuries or even millennia. I don't want to believe that the people who govern us don't have our best interests at heart, that the stories we're told about who we are and where we come from and our place in the universe are lies, that the mainstream media lie to us on such a scale, I don't want to believe all that because it's easier not to. But I go where the evidence leads me, and unfortunately more and more the evidence leads me to that belief. And I still prefer to face the hard truth rather than swallow easy lies. When I was a kid I wanted to be an astrophysicist. I studied the mainstream fundamental theories of physics in depth. I became an engineer and I worked on satellites. There is stuff I saw there that didn't make sense. And more and more I realized how powerful people conspire against the general population. How the mainstream media spread lies. How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity. For most of my life the idea that men never walked on the moon struck me as far-fetched, as stupid. And yet the evidence is there. Watch the documentary American Moon from start to finish with an open mind, look at the evidence objectively, there are contradictions in the official story that can't be reconciled, that can't be explained away, evidence of lies, deception.

Every single 'contradiction' in American Moon is easily explained, and has been over and over.  That video isn't anything new, it's a re-hash of stuff that's been floating around forever, and has been debunked over and over before that video took them and mixed them in with pop culture references. I can't take a video seriously that makes me watch clips of Minions and Coneheads as evidence of a vast ranging conspiracy. At least Capricorn 1 was a decent movie. But doesn't prove anything.

None of it makes me think "How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity."  That's not in any of those videos, that's coming from your head. That's why most people don't see the same things you do, they see regular folks with incredible jobs doing neat things in space, and you see wires and deception everywhere. You have to ask yourself, if you see evil in all these people, where is that coming from?

Is there evil in the world? Hell yeah. But I don't think NASA is behind it all. People are jerks. Jerks do evil things. I wish there was one guy we could take out that is behind everything bad, but there isn't.

Point 3?  You mean showing over and over at 03:07 where her jacket sleeve gets caught on the patch on her chest?

You're right about that one, I hadn't noticed that.

There is always a logical explanation if you look closely enough.

Or where the guy goes to reach for the spinning person in case he needs to catch him, then grabs a handhold out of frame?

Watch carefully, his hand is not out of the frame when he pulls him back.

I covered this earlier above, #3 0:36.  Watch his right hand behind his back, he's holding on to a clearly visible black bar.

How about the one at 9:00? Don't focus on the tilt of her head, that's not the intriguing part. There is a force pulling her to the right, how do you explain that in a zero-G environment?

In the last video I linked, the guy is holding a mic with one hand, then somehow the fingers of his other hand go underneath the fingers of the hand holding the mic. How is that possible without video manipulation? Between 11:15 and 11:30 here :



#3 9:00 Again, I see nothing wrong. At what exact second do you see her moving to the right that you can't explain? I see her reaching with her arm several times and moving her legs and nothing looks out of place to me. I'll need more exact timestamps.

Nasa Liars 11:15 I see him sliding his fingers under his other fingers, which is something fingers can do. The voice over says "Tightly holding onto the microphone" but what I see is him holding onto a mic in zero-g with his index finger and thumb, his other fingers not gripping it. Again, it looks perfectly normal to me. Or is it talking about the mpeg compression glitches from packet loss?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #611 on: May 10, 2020, 01:40:50 PM »

There are two ways of looking at all those conversations you posted.

1. They are all liars who can't keep their stories straight but somehow have fooled the entire world for 50 years.

2. Differences in interior lighting, window materials, orbits, sun position, and eye light sensitivity means people see different things.

Number 2 is the obvious choice for me.

Considering Leroy Chiao has been on the ISS, and he says that during the day when you look into deep space it's the darkest black you can imagine, how do you explain how Mike Massimino and Don Pettit can see stars, moons, planets and the Magellanic clouds "pretty much all the time"?

It's not a difference in orbit because the orbit is the same. The sun position is irrelevant because they're all looking during the day away from the sun into deep space. Eye light sensitivity is not going to make two people see extremely faint details while some others would see the "darkest black you can imagine", unless these guys are blind. Window material is supposed to be the same and it wouldn't make such a difference. Interior lighting during the day is not going to make you stop seeing what's outside.

If you're going to pretend that different astronauts see totally different things in the same place then why trust anything they say they see? Seriously one might say something and some other one would say the total opposite, and maybe in their place we would see something totally different, so why listen to them at all if we see such a different world? Why believe pictures from space if other cameras or our own eyes would see something totally different? That's what your stance leads to.

I don't want to believe they're all liars but damn at least admit it when there is stuff that doesn't make sense, because there it's just your confirmation bias saying "there must be an explanation because I can't believe they would be lying". Yea well what if the explanation is they are lying? You don't want to believe it but what if it's true? The reasons you gave aren't valid so what's the explanation?

We bring up conformation bias because you see two people look at each other to see who is going to speak, and think that's suspicious behavior indicating a conspiracy.

If they were really looking to see who is going to speak, why do they then proceed to talk on top of each other again and again? Don't you see that saying that "they look at each other to see who is going to speak" is your own confirmation bias because you're assuming in the first place that they're telling the truth? Don't assume they're telling the truth and don't assume either they are lying but look at their body language, and indeed try to explain why would they look to see who is going to speak only to keep talking on top of each other for the rest of the conversation.

I do astrophotography as a hobby, I'm well aware of how lighting conditions can make it easier or harder to see stars, as well as how cameras work in general. I am not even slightly surprised two people in the same place can see differently. When I do stargazing it takes a good 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust. One guy looks at a bright light and he's not seeing anything out the windows for a while.

Doesn't explain how some guys can see the faintest details pretty much all the time and some others always see the darkest black you can imagine.

#3 0:20 Guy in the back left puts his hand out as he sees a foot coming at him, then reaches for something offscreen.
#3 0:36 I see the guy reaching behind him to gold on to a black curved bar.

What do you see?

#3 8:55 I see a woman floating in space, occasionally grabbing things and... her head is tilted to look at the camera? What is weird about wanting to have your face right side up for the camera?

What do you see wrong?

I'm gonna mention the precise timestamps, the timestamps I gave were supposed to be the beginning of the scene so you could see the context.

#3 0:22 What is the guy in the back left reaching for?
#3 0:47 I don't see a black curved bar, where is it? There is the wire of the mic but that's not what the guy is grabbing. His hand is visible and he appears to be grabbing something invisible while pulling the guy in blue towards him.

#3 From 9:00 to 9:07, don't focus on the tilt of her head. How can her whole body be moving in that way in zero-G? She has to grab something in order to not be carried away.

Every single 'contradiction' in American Moon is easily explained, and has been over and over.  That video isn't anything new, it's a re-hash of stuff that's been floating around forever, and has been debunked over and over before that video took them and mixed them in with pop culture references. I can't take a video seriously that makes me watch clips of Minions and Coneheads as evidence of a vast ranging conspiracy. At least Capricorn 1 was a decent movie. But doesn't prove anything.

Oh really? Have you watched the whole documentary? Clips of Minions and Coneheads and Capricorn One aren't proof of anything, seriously if that's what you're focusing on out of all the important info and evidence in the documentary then maybe you aren't willing to discuss the evidence.

The documentary asks a series of 42 questions. The first question starts at the 1:13:13 mark. I have mentioned a few of them in this thread that have gone unanswered. I'm not gonna list them all, just a few. Here is the link of the documentary again : https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Question # 4 (see from 1:11:50 to 1:13:00) : How is it possible that one of the very few astronauts to have crossed the Van Allen belts doesn't even know where they are, and even doubts having gone "far enough out to encounter the Van Allen belts"?

Question # 10 (see from 1:23:55 to 1:26:20) : Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth, why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

Question # 16 (see from 1:40:08 to 1:46:10) : Given that, according to NASA’s manual, "The HGA pointing must remain within 2.5° of Earth" and that "the video signal will degrade extremely rapidly beyond that point", how was it possible to broadcast images with such violent oscillations without the signal breaking nor degrading during the live feeds from the Moon?

Question # 21 (see from 1:55:52 to 2:00:30) : Given that these are not artefacts from video conversion, nor are they glares inside the lens, can you explain what these flashes of light sometimes appearing over the head of the astronauts actually are?

Question # 22 (see from 2:00:30 to 2:03:30) : Can you explain how it is possible to make a movement such as this one, this one, or this one, without some kind of external force pulling you upwards?

Questions # 27-30 (see from 2:21:35 to 2:30:38) :
Given that, according to NASA, "no practical method exists for eliminating cosmic radiation damage", and that "this degrading factor must be accepted", where is the degradation, significant but acceptable, that should appear on the lunar pictures?
Given that this is the result of cosmic rays’ impact on film within the magnetosphere, where radiation is weaker than in external space, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no visible signs of radiation damage?
Given that this is the result of a simple X-ray scan, which last only a few seconds, can you explain why in the Apollo pictures, which have been exposed to cosmic radiation for up to 8 consecutive hours, there is no visible graining whatsoever?
Given that the lunar surface gets hit by an average of one to four particles per square centimeter per second, and that the cameras have been out on the surface, unprotected, for up to 8 consecutive hours, can you explain why on the lunar pictures there are no signs of degradation due to the radiation?

Questions # 34-35 (see from 2:48:42 to 2:56:50) :
When the sun is on the side, all shadows on the ground must appear parallel to each other. Can you explain why in this NASA picture the shadow of the LEM and those of the rocks in the foreground appear to be clearly diverging instead?
Given that this scene is supposedly lit by the sun, which is millions of miles away, can you explain why the shadows lead to a source that is located not far from the left edge of the image instead?

Question # 37 (see from 2:57:03 to 3:00:00) : Being millions of miles away, the sun casts sharp shadows on the ground. Can you explain why in these pictures there is a soft edge all around the astronaut’s figure instead?


None of it makes me think "How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity."  That's not in any of those videos, that's coming from your head. That's why most people don't see the same things you do, they see regular folks with incredible jobs doing neat things in space, and you see wires and deception everywhere. You have to ask yourself, if you see evil in all these people, where is that coming from?

When did I say that my realization there is a powerful evil in this world comes from these videos? That comes from your head, not mine. This realization comes from what I have seen and experienced, not from these videos.

Is there evil in the world? Hell yeah. But I don't think NASA is behind it all. People are jerks. Jerks do evil things. I wish there was one guy we could take out that is behind everything bad, but there isn't.

When did I say that NASA is behind it all? NASA would just be one part of the whole, one tentacle. Plenty of seemingly crazy conspiracy theories involving governments and government agencies turned out to be true. That of course doesn't prove that any seemingly crazy theory is true, but it should at least make us skeptical and not blindly trusting of what they want us to believe. And in the case of NASA there is a lot of evidence of deception.

There is always a logical explanation if you look closely enough.

And sometimes the only logical explanation remaining is that we are being deceived.

#3 9:00 Again, I see nothing wrong. At what exact second do you see her moving to the right that you can't explain? I see her reaching with her arm several times and moving her legs and nothing looks out of place to me. I'll need more exact timestamps.

Her waist is moving upwards/right, it's not her legs that are responsible for this movement. How does she get from the position at 9:02 to the one at 9:07? It clearly seems that if she wasn't holding on with her hand she would be carried away by an invisible force.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #612 on: May 10, 2020, 03:58:28 PM »

There are two ways of looking at all those conversations you posted.

1. They are all liars who can't keep their stories straight but somehow have fooled the entire world for 50 years.

2. Differences in interior lighting, window materials, orbits, sun position, and eye light sensitivity means people see different things.

Number 2 is the obvious choice for me.

Considering Leroy Chiao has been on the ISS, and he says that during the day when you look into deep space it's the darkest black you can imagine, how do you explain how Mike Massimino and Don Pettit can see stars, moons, planets and the Magellanic clouds "pretty much all the time"?

It's not a difference in orbit because the orbit is the same. The sun position is irrelevant because they're all looking during the day away from the sun into deep space. Eye light sensitivity is not going to make two people see extremely faint details while some others would see the "darkest black you can imagine", unless these guys are blind. Window material is supposed to be the same and it wouldn't make such a difference. Interior lighting during the day is not going to make you stop seeing what's outside.

If you're going to pretend that different astronauts see totally different things in the same place then why trust anything they say they see? Seriously one might say something and some other one would say the total opposite, and maybe in their place we would see something totally different, so why listen to them at all if we see such a different world? Why believe pictures from space if other cameras or our own eyes would see something totally different? That's what your stance leads to.

I don't want to believe they're all liars but damn at least admit it when there is stuff that doesn't make sense, because there it's just your confirmation bias saying "there must be an explanation because I can't believe they would be lying". Yea well what if the explanation is they are lying? You don't want to believe it but what if it's true? The reasons you gave aren't valid so what's the explanation?

(Splitting the video stuff off from this thread as it's getting rather large.)

I mentioned orbit differences because in your previous message you brought up Astronauts on the moon, and Apollo flights. So I was saying of course not everyone sees the same thing.

Go into a room at night,m turn on the light, walk until you can see the reflection of that light in the window.  What do you see?  Now move up to the window and look out, see anything different? Are you a liar now?

That's why I don't see a conspiracy. Of COURSE they will all see different things at different times and are all going to describe what struct them the most and no, I don't at all expect them to repeat the exact same thing when describing their experiences.  I see nothing wrong with that.

We bring up conformation bias because you see two people look at each other to see who is going to speak, and think that's suspicious behavior indicating a conspiracy.

If they were really looking to see who is going to speak, why do they then proceed to talk on top of each other again and again? Don't you see that saying that "they look at each other to see who is going to speak" is your own confirmation bias because you're assuming in the first place that they're telling the truth? Don't assume they're telling the truth and don't assume either they are lying but look at their body language, and indeed try to explain why would they look to see who is going to speak only to keep talking on top of each other for the rest of the conversation.

Lets both agree we don't know why they looked at each other. To you it's suspicious, to me it's not. To me it's two guys who probably have some training in how to talk to the media but are just there to do a job and aren't perfect interviewees.

I do astrophotography as a hobby, I'm well aware of how lighting conditions can make it easier or harder to see stars, as well as how cameras work in general. I am not even slightly surprised two people in the same place can see differently. When I do stargazing it takes a good 15 minutes for my eyes to adjust. One guy looks at a bright light and he's not seeing anything out the windows for a while.

Doesn't explain how some guys can see the faintest details pretty much all the time and some others always see the darkest black you can imagine.

You are taking when he said you can see stars "pretty much all the time" as literal.  Like, how can he see stars with his eyes closed, he said ALL THE TIME!

Again, I see nothing about their discussions I don't hear every day when talking to people.  You are being WAY to literal about interviews with people who are just trying to describe what it's like to work up there. Again, read my "room with a lamp at night" example above.  I might say I can see whats going on in my yard at night all the time, even though sometimes the lamp blinds me. It's just a figure of speech, they are not writing scientific papers on their observations, it's entertainment.

None of it makes me think "How there is a powerful evil in this world that works on deceiving and enslaving humanity."  That's not in any of those videos, that's coming from your head. That's why most people don't see the same things you do, they see regular folks with incredible jobs doing neat things in space, and you see wires and deception everywhere. You have to ask yourself, if you see evil in all these people, where is that coming from?

When did I say that my realization there is a powerful evil in this world comes from these videos? That comes from your head, not mine. This realization comes from what I have seen and experienced, not from these videos.

Is there evil in the world? Hell yeah. But I don't think NASA is behind it all. People are jerks. Jerks do evil things. I wish there was one guy we could take out that is behind everything bad, but there isn't.

When did I say that NASA is behind it all? NASA would just be one part of the whole, one tentacle. Plenty of seemingly crazy conspiracy theories involving governments and government agencies turned out to be true. That of course doesn't prove that any seemingly crazy theory is true, but it should at least make us skeptical and not blindly trusting of what they want us to believe. And in the case of NASA there is a lot of evidence of deception.

I'm just guessing at NASA, but the point still stands.  You see a great evil in the world, and it colors your views of everything you see.  I don't see a great evil conspiracy, so my views are different.

What's an example of a proven true conspiracy on the scale of NASA and other space agencies and dozens of governments hiding the shape of the planet from the whole worlds for thousands of years?

There is always a logical explanation if you look closely enough.

And sometimes the only logical explanation remaining is that we are being deceived.

I have verified with my own eyes and telescopes and cameras a hundred times, things NASA and science has told me is true. Some of my friends work for JPL, I don't think they are liars, or actors.

Has NASA lied? I'm sure they have. Probably covered up sloppy safety issues or wasted money. But the shape of the earth? No way.

( BTW, I'm impressed you are quoting everything so precisely. I'm really struggling keeping from making formatting mistakes at this point. )

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #613 on: May 10, 2020, 04:21:57 PM »
1 . Don't know if they still teach this stuff in school but chemical reaction rate increases and decreases according to corresponding  temperature/pressure increase or decrease - particularly in gases.
Well, you source isn't very up to date either ("Jim Clark 2002 (last modified May 2017)") and no longer seriously maintained ("As of July 2016, I am unlikely to add anything new to Chemguide, ...").
But "physical chemistry" probably hasn't changed much since Jim Clark retired.

Nicely explained herehttps://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/basicrates/pressure.html
Nicely explained, but not stating what you claim it does.
Where does it say on that page, that the chemical reaction rate decrease to zero in a vacuum? It could also just be slower. 

The rocket fuel may be under pressure in the tanks but as soon as the tanks are open to vacuum then the pressure is gone .
No, it is not. As the nozzle restricts the flow of the gas, there will be pressure inside the combustion chamber (the chamber is filled faster than gas can escape to the vacuum), i.e. where the chemical reaction takes place.
Even if that where not the case, increased pressure mostly increases the amount of reactant per volume.
It is not required for the reaction, it simply supports it.
And finally, that would not apply to solid fuel rockets.

I've already posted a video by this budding scientist , not a FE'r, but watch him trying to ignite various things including rocket fuel with it's own oxidizer in a vacuum chamber .
Indeed you already have, and I have already pointed out, that Cody actually succedes:
If ( and that's a big one)you could start the control burn of fuel ( chemical reaction) in a vacuum you could produce heat .
It's not a big one. Cody has done it in the video you linked to, explicitly saying so himself at 11:20.
At 11:20 he states: "so there you have it. It is very difficult, but possible to burn something in a vacuum" @https://youtu.be/8Cx9mNnky2U?t=680
As you quote Cody as reference, I would hope you accept his findings: It possible to burn something in a vacuum.

2. Well that's not what I said . The only way to accelerate an object / change its momentum is to apply a force . The principle of conservation of momentum is nothing to do with accelerating a rocket .
A force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle.
Also, like totallackey, you would have to explain, where the force, that is present in an atmosphere, disappears to - when everything else si identical in a vacuum.
Apart from the fact, that "free expansion => no work" does not apply, even if did apply, where does the energy created by the exothermic chemical reaction go?

iC
Do yourself a favour and watch the video. Start from 11.20 where you musta left off watching . Listen to him talk about the fire triangle needing to be a fire square because of the need for pressure.

By the way ,his follow up video concentrates on trying to prove that a rocket engine with it's own oxidizer will work in a vacuum . Watch the laws of physics in action . It's already linked in this thread .

The rules of physics predict rocket engines trying to produce force in a vacuum will fail - shown amply in all these videos.

" a force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle" - what a statement .

Go to the updated site if you think the chemistry page is out of date -do some research . Learn stuff.


*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1618
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #614 on: May 10, 2020, 05:00:25 PM »
#3 0:20 Guy in the back left puts his hand out as he sees a foot coming at him, then reaches for something offscreen.
#3 0:36 I see the guy reaching behind him to gold on to a black curved bar.

What do you see?

#3 8:55 I see a woman floating in space, occasionally grabbing things and... her head is tilted to look at the camera? What is weird about wanting to have your face right side up for the camera?

What do you see wrong?

I'm gonna mention the precise timestamps, the timestamps I gave were supposed to be the beginning of the scene so you could see the context.

#3 0:22 What is the guy in the back left reaching for?
#3 0:47 I don't see a black curved bar, where is it? There is the wire of the mic but that's not what the guy is grabbing. His hand is visible and he appears to be grabbing something invisible while pulling the guy in blue towards him.

Ok, if you look at the image there is a large, long metal tube of some sort, maybe an airlock? Top arrow is the back of it, bottom arrow is the front.

You can see the reflection of his pant leg in the window, highlighted to show he is very close to it.

That is what he is grabbing.  You an single frame back and forth to see his fingers are clearly holding on to the front of it.  I thought it was a bar, but looking closer it seems to be an indentation.  But there is clearly a solid structure behind him and his hand is gripping right above the porthole.



#3 From 9:00 to 9:07, don't focus on the tilt of her head. How can her whole body be moving in that way in zero-G? She has to grab something in order to not be carried away.

The entire time from 9:00 to 9:07 she is holding on to the structure with her right hand. You can even see her tighten her grip on it just before she moves. So there is no mystery how her body is moving, she has a solid grip and can bend and move around. No gravity remember, it's like doing super easy pull ups.

Every single 'contradiction' in American Moon is easily explained, and has been over and over.  That video isn't anything new, it's a re-hash of stuff that's been floating around forever, and has been debunked over and over before that video took them and mixed them in with pop culture references. I can't take a video seriously that makes me watch clips of Minions and Coneheads as evidence of a vast ranging conspiracy. At least Capricorn 1 was a decent movie. But doesn't prove anything.

Oh really? Have you watched the whole documentary? Clips of Minions and Coneheads and Capricorn One aren't proof of anything, seriously if that's what you're focusing on out of all the important info and evidence in the documentary then maybe you aren't willing to discuss the evidence.

I used those examples of all the filler in that video, including long clips of showing how special effects are done.  I don't need to watch 5 minutes of a zero-g airplane flight to get the point. Again, showing all the ways you could fake something doesn't prove it's fake. I could CGI a bottle of Coke onto my desk, doesn't mean Coke is a lie and it doesn't exist.

The documentary asks a series of 42 questions. The first question starts at the 1:13:13 mark. I have mentioned a few of them in this thread that have gone unanswered. I'm not gonna list them all, just a few. Here is the link of the documentary again : https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Question # 4 (see from 1:11:50 to 1:13:00) : How is it possible that one of the very few astronauts to have crossed the Van Allen belts doesn't even know where they are, and even doubts having gone "far enough out to encounter the Van Allen belts"?

So a man in his 80s is having trouble remembering details of things from 50 years ago. I am not shocked.

Question # 10 (see from 1:23:55 to 1:26:20) : Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth, why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

This question alone would probably take half an hour or more to research. I need to verify all his videos are what he claims, and read up on the types of rocket fuel used.  He talks about "hypergolic fuel" from several very different systems, but I highly doubt they are all the same mixtures. Plus, rockets firing in an atmosphere are going to produce more effects than in a vacuum. Plus, the lander taking off CLEARLY show the exhaust hitting the surface of the rest of the craft when in close proximity.

I don't really feel like spending all Sunday answering these, sorry.  I'll pick a few easy ones where I don't have to spend hours researching fuel composition or radiation levels and what kind of shielding the film cameras had. The video provides no numbers for most of it's claims, so it's hard to debunk anyway.

Question # 22 (see from 2:00:30 to 2:03:30) : Can you explain how it is possible to make a movement such as this one, this one, or this one, without some kind of external force pulling you upwards?

Seen these all before.  I'll just go over the first one.  "It's as if a mysterious force were pulling him up from the ground"

Nothing mysterious, you can CLEARLY see him grab on to that pole with his left hand and pull himself up by it. Notice him putting his hand on the top, and when he rises his body moves and his hand stays there... just as if he were pushing himself up by it.

I just don't understand people being confused why someone might move in awkward ways in a big pressurized, stiff space suit on the moon. Again, all the movements make sense to me.



Questions # 34-35 (see from 2:48:42 to 2:56:50) :
When the sun is on the side, all shadows on the ground must appear parallel to each other. Can you explain why in this NASA picture the shadow of the LEM and those of the rocks in the foreground appear to be clearly diverging instead?
Given that this scene is supposedly lit by the sun, which is millions of miles away, can you explain why the shadows lead to a source that is located not far from the left edge of the image instead?

Yes, easily. Crepuscular rays. It's just perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbeam

Question # 37 (see from 2:57:03 to 3:00:00) : Being millions of miles away, the sun casts sharp shadows on the ground. Can you explain why in these pictures there is a soft edge all around the astronaut’s figure instead?

Yes. The sun is not a point source, it is a disk. A point source will create a hard line, a light source larger will cast fuzzy shadows.

#3 9:00 Again, I see nothing wrong. At what exact second do you see her moving to the right that you can't explain? I see her reaching with her arm several times and moving her legs and nothing looks out of place to me. I'll need more exact timestamps.

Her waist is moving upwards/right, it's not her legs that are responsible for this movement. How does she get from the position at 9:02 to the one at 9:07? It clearly seems that if she wasn't holding on with her hand she would be carried away by an invisible force.

As I explained above, she is holding on to the station with her hand. That gives her an anchor point to pivot and move her body. She's clearly capable of moving her legs if she wants, I don't see how this is a mystery. Watch videos of people doing pull-ups, humans are very capable of moving their entire bodies with their arms.

Offline iCare

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #615 on: May 10, 2020, 05:59:13 PM »
Do yourself a favour and watch the video. Start from 11.20 where you musta left off watching . Listen to him talk about the fire triangle needing to be a fire square because of the need for pressure.
I did watch the whole video and I'm quite impressed. Especially considering that Cody was quite obviously speaking off the top of his head most of the time, he did a great job.
It would be interesting to know, what his conclusion were after evaluating his experiments with more time and in more detail.
In any case, he has my respect for the effort he put into researching the issue.

In contrast your interpretation of the video sounds a lot like you only halfheartedly listened to the parts (seemingly) in your favor and ignored the rest.
  • He doesn't say, that the chemical reactions would be impossible without pressure, just slower.
    So pressure is not not the fourth corner of the fire triangle. Heat, fuel and an oxidizing agent are required; pressure is just an optional influence.
  • Also at 11:38 "... what you really need is a case around it ... ": Doesn't that sound like exactly what a combustion chamber would be?
By the way ,his follow up video concentrates on trying to prove that a rocket engine with it's own oxidizer will work in a vacuum . Watch the laws of physics in action . It's already linked in this thread .

Indeed it and just like in the previous video Cody's conclusion is opposite to what you're claiming (as was pointed out at the time). 
At 7:18 he says: "So there you go, rocket motors can produce just as much thrust if not a little more in a vacuum as they can in air ..."

Cody used a rocket motor not designed for vacuum and made it work in his back yard to prove that rockets work in a vacuum.
I think it is a safe bet, that a rocket motor professionally designed for space will do much better.

So again, as you introduced those videos up as proof, will you accept their outcome? Rockets do work in a vacuum, as shown by the source you provided.

The rules of physics predict rocket engines trying to produce force in a vacuum will fail - shown amply in all these videos.
You keep repeating that like a mantra, but it is still wrong.
The laws of physics (Newton's Laws, Laws of Thermodynamics, ...), if understood and applied correctly, predict that rockets must work in a vacuum. And those videos (while I wouldn't consider them perfect proof) strongly indicate the same.

So what "rules" are you talking about? Joule's Law of Free Expansion?
As explained many times, it does not apply to rocket propulsion, because the exhaust is being expelled through a nozzle and not expanding freely.
The exhaust is expelled at a higher speed than it would have expanding (only) freely: Newton's Law requires the rocket to accelerate accordingly in the opposite direction.
Your claims violate Newton's Laws. Can you prove them wrong?

" a force is applied by forcing gas through a nozzle" - what a statement .
It is, indeed, a statement.
What's your point?

do some research . Learn stuff.
Looking at your posts - which keep repeating the same superficial arguments or non-arguments ("what a statement") - and my posts - which actually go into details on counterarguments to your claims -, it seems pretty obvious, that I have either done a lot more research than you have or have learned much more from it or (likely) both.
Your advice is good advice, but aimed at the wrong person. I'd suggest, you take a look in the mirror (or your posts) and take it yourself.

iC
"I'm sorry, if you were right, I would agree with you."
Robin Williams as Dr. Sayer in "Awakenings" (1990)

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #616 on: May 10, 2020, 06:04:08 PM »
Quote
You say you've watched all the footage in these videos before, I sincerely doubt it, but let's say you have, don't watch the whole videos but focus only on the timestamps I have mentioned. I agree that in most such videos there is a lot of confirmation bias (just like there is confirmation bias on your side), however the specific examples I pinpointed are pretty hard to explain away. Why don't you watch the specific ones I mentioned and try to explain them?

In the first video between 11:27 and 11:47, only the man is fading out, not the whole scenery. In the third video (green screen fail), if you take the time to watch and listen to it all, the flags in the background move in a continuous way before, during and after the person is fading in, which shows that the background is a green screen.

In the first video at 00:30 what is he grabbing? At 03:10, how the hell can you explain how she's being pulled up without a harness or wires? At 08:55 how could she be moving that way on her own in zero-G?

How do you explain away the bubbles? What are they? Why are they always moving in the same general direction?

There is something flying up there that we can see, in itself that doesn't show there is anyone in it. Yes people have spoken to the "astronauts" live, that doesn't prove they are actually up there. How the hell do you explain that the two "astronauts" Mike Massimino and Don Pettit claim that they can see many stars, planets, moons and the Magellanic clouds during the day? Seriously look at them and listen to what they say (first video from 29:40 to 32:50, watch the whole segment)
You sincerely doubt I've watched them? What makes you say this? If it's because I disagree with you then, well I guess I doubt you've watched them either. What you're doing here is assuming the worst of me with no reason other than I have a different opinion to yours which quite honestly makes me not want to bother with you, but I'll try anyway. To answer your questions, yes, even though I've seen the videos before I actually did go to each of your timestamps to make sure I knew what it was you were trying to say. So to go to your timestamps and your points, here we go!

1. 29:40 to 32:50 You point out that you think they were lying about being able to see the stars. One was on the ISS and the other was on the surface of the moon. The moon is bright during it's daytime and the reflective light makes it really hard to see the dim starlights, the same can be observed here on earth in a big city at night with street lights etc, you probably won't see stars so easily. The other were seemingly on the ISS, so long as they're looking away from the earth they likely won't have that problem... Since they won't have anything bright obscuring their vision.

2. 11:27 to 11:47 same video, yea that's just a fade out, if the camera perfectly still and they fade between takes then you get a 'vanishing guy' effect. As for 3:10 on the second video, lol yea obviously that is cgi, I don't think they were trying to hide that. It was to make the pre-recorded video fun for kids I guess? Then the next video down, just fading between takes again. The flags are barely moving and the fade distance is pretty wide, unless the fade between takes is a harsh line you probably won't notice. Try this yourself in a frontroom with a camera or something.

3. 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55. When the guy spins, the other guys just trying to steady him without looking. there is no wire, there is nothing else that he seems to be grabbing other than just trying to steady the guy. Here test this yourself, without looking, try to grab an object out of your vision. Did you grab it easily first time or did you grab some air sometimes? 03:07, her cuff caught on her top. 8:55 shes ;looking at a camera, maybe she wants to stay in line with that? maybe she had a sense of "up" because the whole room and everything around her isn't randomly rotated and positioned, take a look at the laptops for example. if she were being held up on a harness why would she even need to worry about pointing her head up anyway? :P

As for the idea that movies and tv shows simulate zero-g with wires, take a look at the extremely long video of exploring the ISS and tell me where are all the wires and harnesses as he moves through the structure? Where are all the different camera angle changes? It's all recorded in a single take on one camera because there's no need for tricks.

And as for the last video about "augmented reality". No man, that's a lossy compressed video glitch. Shit happens. Have you seen the millions of youtube videos recorded on terrible cameras compressed to to hell? Imagine that, but live wireless video feed from an extremely fast moving object in the sky. Video glitches are going to happen.

Now here's my challenge to you. If NASA are so absolutely awful at video editing and constantly messup up their greenscreens and tripping on their harness wires or whatever else, can you show me any video of the ISS or the moon landings where you can see an acual wire? Like really see it, not your imagination running wild and telling you it's there, an honest to god mess up that shows a wire. I'll even take a green screen mess up like you see in weather reports on the news where they may have a slightly obvious lighting difference or coloured haze outlining them (the colour of the greenscreen). Anything that cannot be explained otherwise?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 06:07:21 PM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1292
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #617 on: May 10, 2020, 10:30:51 PM »
It has been suggested many many times to flat earthers that if they doubt the existence of the ISS (due to the belief that space travel is a conspiracy and a hoax) that they could simply observe the ISS through high powered telescopes.

I have observed the ISS many times through my father's telescope, whom is an amateur astronomer. One can go online to see exactly when the ISS will orbit overhead and observe first hand.

Given this, i don't understand why this opportunity to observing the ISS first hand seems to always be glossed over by flat Earthers.

It's like there tons and tons of discussion about government cover-,ups and space travel being faked when all a flat earther has to do is what I suggest above.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #618 on: May 10, 2020, 10:34:04 PM »
I'm not sure how they pulled this off this SkyLab trickery in the early to mid-70's pre-CGI:




Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #619 on: May 11, 2020, 12:52:41 AM »

I mentioned orbit differences because in your previous message you brought up Astronauts on the moon, and Apollo flights. So I was saying of course not everyone sees the same thing.

Go into a room at night,m turn on the light, walk until you can see the reflection of that light in the window.  What do you see?  Now move up to the window and look out, see anything different? Are you a liar now?

That's why I don't see a conspiracy. Of COURSE they will all see different things at different times and are all going to describe what struct them the most and no, I don't at all expect them to repeat the exact same thing when describing their experiences.  I see nothing wrong with that.

Okay. The problem is Leroy Chiao has spent 229 days in space, including 36 hours on spacewalks (as the official story goes https://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/chiao-bio.html), from 1994 until 2005. He retired from NASA in 2005.

The RT interview in which he mentions that "When you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're on the Sun side of the orbit, it's the darkest black you can imagine" is from 2014.

He was saying the same in 2005 : "The most mysterious thing hes come across is the utter blackness of space. It looks like the darkest black you can imagine" (https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bellaire/news/article/St-Anne-pupils-make-contact-with-astronaut-in-9782028.php)

He was still saying the same in 2016 : "The creepiest thing is looking out into deep space while you are on the sunlit part of the orbit. The sunlight washes out the starlight, and all you can see is the darkest black you can imagine, going on basically to infinity!" (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3tbjwa/were_all_astronauts_ask_us_anything_about_what/ , posting as Astrodude)

So the guy has been 229 days in space, 36 hours on spacewalks, and more than 10 years later he still talks about the darkest black you can imagine, as the "most mysterious thing" he's come across, "the creepiest thing". Is that the kind of comment you make year after year after year because on some occasions you didn't see stars because your eyes hadn't adapted to the darkness? Hell no. He is saying that during the day he never saw stars, even on spacewalks, and that it left a deep impression on him.

Meanwhile the other two guys claim to see stars, planets, moons and even the Magellanic clouds during the day pretty much all the time. Are you seeing the contradiction now? Either these two guys are lying, or the other one, or all of them.


You are taking when he said you can see stars "pretty much all the time" as literal.  Like, how can he see stars with his eyes closed, he said ALL THE TIME!

Again, I see nothing about their discussions I don't hear every day when talking to people.  You are being WAY to literal about interviews with people who are just trying to describe what it's like to work up there. Again, read my "room with a lamp at night" example above.  I might say I can see whats going on in my yard at night all the time, even though sometimes the lamp blinds me. It's just a figure of speech, they are not writing scientific papers on their observations, it's entertainment.

Pretty much all the time, as in pretty much all the time during the day when they're looking away from Earth into deep space (since that was the question). Whereas based on the above, I think you can agree that Leroy Chiao didn't say that deep space is the darkest black simply because sometimes he was blinded by interior lighting. They contradict one another in a profound way that cannot be explained away.


I have verified with my own eyes and telescopes and cameras a hundred times, things NASA and science has told me is true. Some of my friends work for JPL, I don't think they are liars, or actors.

Has NASA lied? I'm sure they have. Probably covered up sloppy safety issues or wasted money. But the shape of the earth? No way.

Interesting that you mention the JPL. Did you know that one of its founders (Jack Parsons) was an occultist who worshipped the devil, and that he was friend with L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? They performed rituals together. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-19-me-10501-story.html

Did you know that high-ranking Nazis involved in war crimes went on to work for NASA? One of them was Wernher von Braun, who became director of the largest NASA center and worked on the Apollo program. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31067396/hunters-amazon-nazi-nasa-true-story/

More recently, at least 8 NASA employees were caught buying child pornography. Their names have been kept secret and they weren't prosecuted. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

Now I'm not saying that all people working for the JPL or NASA are evil. I'm sure there are plenty of fine people there who sincerely believe they are working for the greater good, unaware of what's really going on behind the scenes. But I think you can agree there is some shady stuff going on over there. In itself that doesn't prove all the conspiracy theories about NASA are true. But it's an incentive to look more seriously into them.

I'm just guessing at NASA, but the point still stands.  You see a great evil in the world, and it colors your views of everything you see.  I don't see a great evil conspiracy, so my views are different.

What's an example of a proven true conspiracy on the scale of NASA and other space agencies and dozens of governments hiding the shape of the planet from the whole worlds for thousands of years?

I see a lot of good in the world but I also see a great evil indeed. This would be the biggest proven conspiracy if it were proven to be true, but let's not focus on flat Earth right now, step by step.

As examples of proven conspiracies on a large scale, we have the mass surveillance programs of intelligence agencies conspiring with big tech companies to monitor all electronic communications (not so long ago one used to be seen as a nutjob for believing in such a thing).
We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the US government lied to start a war with Vietnam.
We have the mind control project MKULTRA of the CIA, involving illegal human experimentation (torture in various forms).

The best list of proven conspiracies I have found is this one : https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/lopc . If you go through the list it paints quite a bleak picture indeed. It is evidence of evil on a large scale that we aren't aware of or that we choose to ignore.

( BTW, I'm impressed you are quoting everything so precisely. I'm really struggling keeping from making formatting mistakes at this point. )

Well, if you can tell I'm not an idiot that can be one more incentive to look more seriously into the evidence against the moon landings, for starters. There is the widespread belief that people who believe these conspiracies are real are nutjobs, but that's not the truth, there are well-educated people who have looked into them and who can tell that something is amiss. I also believe that many people who are otherwise not highly educated have a sixth sense for bullshit, they aren't able to explain the thought process that led them to see that they are being bullshitted but they see it clear as day, whereas highly educated individuals tend to be more trusting of authorities, since a great part of education involves believing and accepting what the authority (teacher) says.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2020, 01:00:16 AM by yetitsflat »