[ChrisTP]

Regarding that documentary I would like to point out the lighting angle from a parallel light source can create such shadows depending on the focal length. Of course, maybe some uneven terrain is involved but if you assumed totally flat you could still reproduce this, I did a quick version in blender (when I say quick I mean I didn't measure anything with distances or what the actual sun angle was, I just eyeballed it to show the point). I used a directional light in my scene, meaning the light source is simply coming from a single direction and never comes to a single point, thus best simulating as if the light source was extremely far. The results in Blender show the shadow of the far away object being almost perfectly horizontal while the close up objects shadows aren't. Again this was super rough and I don't know what the focal length, camera angle or distances of things etc were in the actual photo, I just wanted to illustrate this point. If the terrain is uneven and the objects casting the shadows aren't super basic cubes then the shadows would vary even more but for my test I just used basic shapes on a totally flat surface. I'm sure if I had more than 5 minutes on this I could replicate it exactly but time is money.




If I really ramp up the focal length it creates even more seperation. Notice now the far away object shadow is totally horizontal while the objects close up have even more extreme shadow angles. I didn't move anything or change anything other than focal length.

[AATW]

American Moon is the best documentary on the subject https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Watched a bit of it. Bit of speculation and insinuation about why a couple of people resigned. About Webb I found this:

"Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and since Johnson chose not to run for reelection, Webb decided to step "down as administrator to allow the next president, Republican Richard Nixon, to choose his own administrator."

I'm sure they both had their reasons but it isn't evidence of anything.

Then there was a baseless assertion that they would have "had" to fake it because of all the "propaganda", that's just an opinion, not evidence.

References to a couple of people who have written works on moan hoaxes (both self published, I note...)
Found this pretty quickly

Kaysing also claimed that NASA staged both the Apollo 1 fire and the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, deliberately murdering the astronauts on board, suggesting that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence
A vocal advocate of other conspiracy theories, Kaysing believed there to be a high-level conspiracy involving the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Reserve, Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies to brainwash the American public, poison their food supply, and control the media

The 2001 Fox TV show Did We Land on the Moon? described [Rene] as a “physicist” and as an “author/scientist”, but Rene acknowledged in his own online biography that he “did not finish college and is, therefore, without ‘proper academic credentials.’”
On his website and in his book The Last Skeptic of Science (1988), Ralph Rene argued that the official value of pi is wrong (the real one, he claimed was exactly 3.146264), that Einstein’s theory of relativity is not valid and that Newton’s law of universal gravitation is in error.

So they both sound nice and credible.

There was the usual nonsense about the Van Allen belts which were an issue for the astronauts - they went through them quickly so the exposure wasn't too high but even then the Apollo astronauts have suffered a higher degree of heart disease than average so it's possible it did have some effect on them.

I didn't get any further as I suspect it'll be the usual stuff - shadow angles, lack of dust clouds and blast craters, etc. It's all perfectly easy to understand if you actually look into it and don't have an agenda. All the "evidence" I've seen in this area is based on ignorance.

There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the Apollo missions, you don't need to blindly trust NASA about this.

[yetitsflat]

The gas isn't exploding inside the rocket.

Except in the case of some launches.

Just stop with ignorance.

The gas expands at a high velocity, that's what I call an explosion, but it's a controlled one. In a combustion engine the expanding gas pushes on pistons, in a rocket the expanding gas pushes on the rocket in one direction since it is also ejected in the opposite direction (which doesn't push it back).

The ignorance (or wilful disinformation) would be to attempt to prove that the moon landings were faked by invoking a falsehood (that rockets can't work in a vacuum).

There is plenty of convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked (multiple light sources on photos, astronauts and photos unaffected by the Van Allen radiation belt, recordings in which the astronauts reply to Houston in less than one second while they're supposed to be on the Moon, no visible exhaust plume during the LEM take off, astronauts who sometimes appear to be pulled upwards as if by a wire, Michael Collins who claimed in the Apollo 11 post flight press conference that he didn't see any star while he was orbiting the moon (Armstrong's reaction when he says that is very telling), telemetry data that was conveniently lost, inability to put men back on the moon 50 years later, ...), so invoking the false idea that rockets can't work in a vacuum as supposed evidence is a red herring that is a disservice to the truth.

[totallackey]

The gas isn't exploding inside the rocket.

Except in the case of some launches.

Just stop with ignorance.

The gas expands at a high velocity, that's what I call an explosion, but it's a controlled one. In a combustion engine the expanding gas pushes on pistons, in a rocket the expanding gas pushes on the rocket in one direction since it is also ejected in the opposite direction (which doesn't push it back).

All beautiful, except when gas is freely expanding (which it does when it is released to a vacuum), then it does 0 work (as in push against anything).

Your thinking is faulty.

The ignorance (or wilful disinformation) would be to attempt to prove that the moon landings were faked by invoking a falsehood (that rockets can't work in a vacuum).

Willful disinformation is trying to argue against proven science.

Proven science is that Joule's Law is real.

The video evidence here is real science also.

That video evidence demonstrates rockets do not work in a vacuum.

Period.

There is plenty of convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked (multiple light sources on photos, astronauts and photos unaffected by the Van Allen radiation belt, recordings in which the astronauts reply to Houston in less than one second while they're supposed to be on the Moon, no visible exhaust plume during the LEM take off, astronauts who sometimes appear to be pulled upwards as if by a wire, Michael Collins who claimed in the Apollo 11 post flight press conference that he didn't see any star while he was orbiting the moon (Armstrong's reaction when he says that is very telling), telemetry data that was conveniently lost, inability to put men back on the moon 50 years later, ...), so invoking the false idea that rockets can't work in a vacuum as supposed evidence is a red herring that is a disservice to the truth.

We all know the evidence of which you write is correct.

All of the film and picture evidence is correct.

The reason it is correct is that rockets don't work in a vacuum.

The science of free expansion states they cannot.

[AATW]

There is plenty of convincing evidence that the moon landings were faked (multiple light sources on photos, astronauts and photos unaffected by the Van Allen radiation belt, recordings in which the astronauts reply to Houston in less than one second while they're supposed to be on the Moon, no visible exhaust plume during the LEM take off, astronauts who sometimes appear to be pulled upwards as if by a wire, Michael Collins who claimed in the Apollo 11 post flight press conference that he didn't see any star while he was orbiting the moon (Armstrong's reaction when he says that is very telling), telemetry data that was conveniently lost, inability to put men back on the moon 50 years later, ...), so invoking the false idea that rockets can't work in a vacuum as supposed evidence is a red herring that is a disservice to the truth.

ChrisTP has dealt with the light source "issue"
The astronauts were affected by the radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901
I can't sensibly talk about the recordings I don't know if any editing has been done to make the recording flow better.
There's no exhaust plume because of the type of engine which was used which burns with a clear flame and obviously you're not going to get a cloud of smoke in a vacuum.
If it was all faked then why would they use "takes" where you can see astronauts pulled up by wires? I suspect a fair bit of confirmation bias going on there.
The Michael Collins quote is deliberately and dishonestly taken out of context. I believe the quote was actually about whether he could see stars while on the day side of the moon which he could not without looking through some optical device. But you can't see stars during day time on earth either.
Some data was lost but as I've said there is plenty of 3rd party evidence for the missions. Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the craft, the Australians were relaying signals, the Chinese have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, the reflectors put there by the astronauts are still used to measure the distance to the moon.
We haven't gone back simply because there isn't the political will to make it happen. It was incredibly expensive and after it had been done a few times the public interest waned. There was no way the expense could be justified which is why the last two missions were cancelled. Private enterprise is probably the best bet for us to get back there right now.

Again, all this "evidence" is based on ignorance. These things are easily answered if you bother researching it.
Have a look at "Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin, an excellent book about it all

[DuncanDoenitz]

Totallackey today at 10.38 AM;

"Now, knowing that gas released to the confines of a vacuum does 0 work, ...."


Lackey Mate, for once you've hit the nail on the head.  The whole point of Joule's experiment is that it was in a CONFINED vacuum, ie a closed system.  The gas accelerates into the vacuum chamber and then decellerates by an equal and opposite value, resulting in no overall change of energy or velocity.  In the limitless vacuum of space the rocket exhaust is released into an UNCONFINED space so does not subsequently come to rest.  It just keeps on going. 

You can't just keep repeating the soundbite "gas released into a vacuum does no work".  Its just a catchphrase. 

Garlic bread! 

Here's Johny! 

Nice to see you! 


Unless you understand the science and the context, its meaningless. 

[totallackey]

Totallackey today at 10.38 AM;

"Now, knowing that gas released to the confines of a vacuum does 0 work, ...."


Lackey Mate, for once you've hit the nail on the head.  The whole point of Joule's experiment is that it was in a CONFINED vacuum, ie a closed system.  The gas accelerates into the vacuum chamber and then decellerates by an equal and opposite value, resulting in no overall change of energy or velocity.  In the limitless vacuum of space the rocket exhaust is released into an UNCONFINED space so does not subsequently come to rest.  It just keeps on going. 

You can't just keep repeating the soundbite "gas released into a vacuum does no work".  Its just a catchphrase. 

Garlic bread! 

Here's Johny! 

Nice to see you! 


Unless you understand the science and the context, its meaningless.

The idea of gas being released to a confined vacuum or "unconfined" vacuum is somehow different is just remarkable.

Please elucidate as to what could possibly be different.

[AATW]

The idea of gas being released to a confined vacuum or "unconfined" vacuum is somehow different is just remarkable.

Please elucidate as to what could possibly be different.

He already did...
And I once again note my astonishment at you being shown several videos of rockets working in vacuums and somehow declaring them to prove you right. Odd.

[totallackey]

The idea of gas being released to a confined vacuum or "unconfined" vacuum is somehow different is just remarkable.

Please elucidate as to what could possibly be different.

He already did...
And I once again note my astonishment at you being shown several videos of rockets working in vacuums and somehow declaring them to prove you right. Odd.

Err...no...he didn't...

Actually, stating that gas will eventually come to rest in a "confined area," is just totally asinine.

In a defined area (i.e, container), gas is always pressing against the container until it is released.

Stating that releasing gas into an unconfined vacuum somehow allows the gas to do work is also asinine, as the released gas simply has a undefined area into which it can keep freely expanding.

And yeah, we were shown videos of rockets not working in a vacuum, a lot of them introduced by you, thinking they were evidence of rockets working in a vacuum...LOL!

Thanks again!

[BRrollin]

The idea of gas being released to a confined vacuum or "unconfined" vacuum is somehow different is just remarkable.

Please elucidate as to what could possibly be different.

He already did...
And I once again note my astonishment at you being shown several videos of rockets working in vacuums and somehow declaring them to prove you right. Odd.

Err...no...he didn't...

Actually, stating that gas will eventually come to rest in a "confined area," is just totally asinine.

In a defined area (i.e, container), gas is always pressing against the container until it is released.

Stating that releasing gas into an unconfined vacuum somehow allows the gas to do work is also asinine, as the released gas simply has a undefined area into which it can keep freely expanding.

And yeah, we were shown videos of rockets not working in a vacuum, a lot of them introduced by you, thinking they were evidence of rockets working in a vacuum...LOL!

Thanks again!

In a container, the gas is not doing work in “pressing” against the sides. What is really happening is the gas molecules are colliding with the container sides, and recoiling off again. The reason this provides a pressure is because the air molecules, in colliding, experience a change in their momentum.

Since the change in momentum defines a force, that force spread over the surface of the container defines a pressure.

Now remove one of the sides and expose it to a vacuum. The air molecules that were about to hit that side just keep going.

Since they don’t hit that side, they don’t recoil back, and thus do not recoil off other air molecules in the container anymore. This decreases the maxwellian distribution of velocities which results in a decrease in the pressure of the container.

[totallackey]

In a container, the gas is not doing work in “pressing” against the sides. What is really happening is the gas molecules are colliding with the container sides, and recoiling off again. The reason this provides a pressure is because the air molecules, in colliding, experience a change in their momentum.

Yet, that is exactly how your side claims the rocket is working.

Which of course, it does when in a pressurized atmosphere.

However, when no air molecules (i.e., vacuum)...nothing...nada...zip...bupkus...

Thanks for admitting your folly and I appreciate your honesty!

[JSS]

There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were hoaxes, pretending that rockets can't work in vacuum distracts from the real evidence.

American Moon is the best documentary on the subject https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Not a very convincing documentary to be honest. It's filled with opinions and non-evidence. 

Right at the start they provide as evidence:

1. The movie "Capricorn 1" was about NASA faking a Mars landing.
2. The movie "Minnions" showed NASA faking the moon landing.
3. The movie "Coneheads" had one line mentioning the moon landing was a hoax.

Nothing here proves anything except that "Moon Hoax" is part of out popular culture and gets referenced.

Then a lot of talk about how we could use modern green screens to fake it now, and speculation on how back then we could have used other techniques, but look at movies from the late 60's and early 70's and see how bad the compositing was. Just couldn't have been done for all that footage. Even a few seconds of compositing back then was expensive and movies had to use it very sparingly.

I'm not going to debate the video point by point as there isn't much to debate, it's just the author making claims like "You can't see a flame" when I can clearly see a flame. And all the other points have been debunked over and over well before they were collected in this video.

It's well produced, I'll give him that.

[AATW]

In a container, the gas is not doing work in “pressing” against the sides. What is really happening is the gas molecules are colliding with the container sides, and recoiling off again. The reason this provides a pressure is because the air molecules, in colliding, experience a change in their momentum.

Yet, that is exactly how your side claims the rocket is working.

It's not just a claim, you have been shown several videos demonstrating it.
All you're doing is repeatedly misunderstanding the physics around all this and watching videos clearly demonstrating something and then perversely claiming those videos don't demonstrate that.
It's the logical equivalent of saying that the Shuttle was too heavy to take off, being shown a video of a Shuttle launch and then saying "See? Told you!"
Just repeatedly denying something and claiming black is white does not a convincing argument make.

[totallackey]

In a container, the gas is not doing work in “pressing” against the sides. What is really happening is the gas molecules are colliding with the container sides, and recoiling off again. The reason this provides a pressure is because the air molecules, in colliding, experience a change in their momentum.

Yet, that is exactly how your side claims the rocket is working.

It's not just a claim, you have been shown several videos demonstrating it.

LOL!

You agree this how rockets work!

Excellent!

The reason this provides a pressure is because the air molecules, in colliding, experience a change in their momentum.

Kindly inform everyone WHERE AIR MOLECULES are found in a VACUUM!

All you're doing is repeatedly misunderstanding the physics around all this and watching videos clearly demonstrating something and then perversely claiming those videos don't demonstrate that.

No, it is clearly YOU that doesn't understand the physics...cause...wait for it...

THERE ARE NO AIR MOLECULES IN A VACUUM!

It's the logical equivalent of saying that the Shuttle was too heavy to take off, being shown a video of a Shuttle launch and then saying "See? Told you!"
Just repeatedly denying something and claiming black is white does not a convincing argument make.

Nobody denies the Shuttle taking off.

Nobody denies rockets work in space.

Nobody can claim rockets work in a vacuum.

Every single video here proves they do not.

You can't even read for comprehension in this instance.

[DuncanDoenitz]

BR, ICare, JSS, AllAround and friends; my brain is starting to hurt. 

[yetitsflat]

If I really ramp up the focal length it creates even more seperation. Notice now the far away object shadow is totally horizontal while the objects close up have even more extreme shadow angles. I didn't move anything or change anything other than focal length.

ChrisTP has dealt with the light source "issue"

Blender is one thing, do you have a real picture example of this on Earth?

The astronauts were affected by the radiation
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901

They would be affected if they went through the radiation belt. This Nature article doesn't prove they were affected by radiation. All it shows is that out of 7 astronauts who supposedly went to the moon, 3 died of cardiovascular disease, not that this was due to radiation exposure. A sample of 7 is not statistically significant. If you pick a random group of 7 US inhabitants who died between ages 55-64, often 3 of them will have died of cardiovascular disease.

Armstrong died at 82, Collins is 89 and Aldrin is 90, they don't seem to have been affected.

The documentary I linked asks interesting questions regarding the Van Allen belt :

Can you explain why NASA – despite everything van Allen had written on the dangers of radiation – has sent the first astronauts through the radioactive belts without any specific protection, and without even a monkey first, in order to evaluate the effects of radiation on a biological organism as complex as the human being?

If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?

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 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?

I can't sensibly talk about the recordings I don't know if any editing has been done to make the recording flow better.

They are supposed to be unedited and uncut.

There's no exhaust plume because of the type of engine which was used which burns with a clear flame and obviously you're not going to get a cloud of smoke in a vacuum.

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?

Also :

Given that, as confirmed by the debunkers, “the astronauts are literally sitting on the engine”, why don’t we hear any sounds from the engine during lift-off?
Given that during the Apollo 15 lift-off we are even able to hear the music from the tape recorder in the cabin, why don’t we hear the sound of the engine as well?

If it was all faked then why would they use "takes" where you can see astronauts pulled up by wires?

I don't know, they didn't notice or didn't think people would notice?

Look at the video from 2:00:50 to 2:03:30. How the hell do you explain these movements?

The Michael Collins quote is deliberately and dishonestly taken out of context. I believe the quote was actually about whether he could see stars while on the day side of the moon which he could not without looking through some optical device. But you can't see stars during day time on earth either.

Michael Collins was never on the surface of the moon, as the official story goes he remained in lunar orbit while Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the LEM.

(at 48:30)

Some data was lost but as I've said there is plenty of 3rd party evidence for the missions. Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the craft, the Australians were relaying signals, the Chinese have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites, the reflectors put there by the astronauts are still used to measure the distance to the moon.

Tracking the craft up to what point? The distance to the moon was measured by reflected light even before the reflectors were (supposedly) put there.

[AATW]

BR, ICare, JSS, AllAround and friends; my brain is starting to hurt.

totallackey thinks he understands physics but can't work out how to use the quoting system on here even though there's a preview option and you can edit. Doesn't exactly build confidence in his abilities...
I don't know if he's trolling or just incredibly stubborn but it's pointless pursuing things further.
He has been shown videos of rockets working in vacuums and has simply said the prove his point that they do not.
The physics behind why they work in a vacuum has been explained in so many ways and he has either not understood any of them or not tried to. All he's done is repeat the same few stock phrases about free expansion and work despite repeated explanations from people who understand this better than I why the result he is pinning all his hopes on does not apply to rockets.
I suggest that we are just going to continue to go round in circles on this.

[AATW]

Blender is one thing, do you have a real picture example of this on Earth?

Yep. Here you go.

https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1580.0

About the 3rd post down. Non-parallel shadows from the sun. Perspective, basically.
In reality those shadows are parallel, they just don't appear to be from that viewpoint.

[ChrisTP]

Blender is one thing, do you have a real picture example of this on Earth?

Sadly my camera is locked away in my studio during this lockdown or I'd go out and try it but in regards to using Blender, the camera would would in much the same way and it's well known, like below



It's worth noting that cameras can vary and the outcome may sometimes seem strange. The point I was illustrating with my currently limited resources was that shadows can be seen doing this. Is there something about my blender setup you have a problem with that you think would be skewing my results in an unrealistic way?

[iCare]

BR, ICare, JSS, AllAround and friends; my brain is starting to hurt.

Very understandable.
In this thread I sometime feel like talking to (bad) customer service.
In such cases customer service reps will latch onto a keyword ("vacuum") or a catchphrase and throw the standard corporate reply from their cheat sheet ("no force") at you - with no regards to context or your actual question/problem.
You then try to clarify your problem in more detail and get a similar answer - just close enough to be considered an answer, but to far away from your question/problem to be useful.
This process can be repeated ad nauseam. Probably to make you give up rather then stick with your legitimate request.

It's a pain in the b...rain, but what the would be alternative?
Should we let unsupported, faulty claims ("gas cannot be forced into a vacuum") win over scientifically supported facts ("rockets work in a vacuum")?

iC