Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2020, 03:02:12 PM »
Since we have a disagreement about said shape of the earth, the truth of it remains a matter of belief.

No, it doesn't. The earth's shape is what it is.
We might have different beliefs about what that is, but the truth exists independently of that and is unaffected by your belief, or mine.

Quote
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."
There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Well, there's no escape velocity in your FE model, but you understand that the faster you throw something upwards, the higher it goes and the longer it takes to come down again. In the RE model where the earth is a globe with a gravitational field, there is a velocity at which something won't come down again. Do you have any evidence that we have no craft capable of escaping earth's gravity, or are you just arguing from incredulity?
For the record, the space shuttle orbits at just under 5 miles a second. Escape velocity is only the speed you'd need to project something from the ground in order that it leaves earth's gravity

Quote
No it isn't and it is good I am not exercising that type of logic.

I genuinely can't see the difference between my "logic" and yours. Your experience of rockets is you launch them and you come down, ergo you conclude that no-one can launch rockets into orbit. It's flawed logic. You don't have the budget NASA does.

Quote
The little funny gauge tapping video demonstrates faulty equipment

No. The gauge is clearly shown in the video to go down as the pump operates to create a vacuum
See point 14 of this paper which explains why someone might tap the a mechanical gauge:
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2203666/Beamex_White_Papers/Beamex%20White%20Paper%20-%20How%20to%20calibrate%20pressure%20gauges%20ENG.pdf

Quote
See the bulbous areas by the tail? Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

They are part of the Reaction Control System. Diagram here:
https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p46.htm
More explanation here:
https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-rcs.html

They are used to manoeuvre the shuttle when it's in orbit.
And fine, you can't necessarily see if the engines are working when a plane lands. The Shuttle didn't use engines to land, but what would be the significance if it did?

I note, as I'm sure others will, that while I am providing evidence and sources for my assertions, you are just stating yours and when offered the opportunity to provide sources or evidence you refuse to.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2020, 12:14:17 AM »
So because you personally don't have access to rockets which are able to achieve escape velocity that means no-one does and it's not possible?
First, there is no such thing as "escape velocity."

There is no earthly craft capable of generating the power necessary to propel any object to a speed of 7 miles per second.

Says who? Citation requested.
Says me.

The fastest speed any craft carrying a man that has been visually observed to travel was, is, and remains the ISS.

"Says me"? Hardly a citation.

As well, what is your citation for the "The fastest speed any craft carrying a man..." Citation required.

Is this your thing: You just say stuff without any corroborating evidence, (or evidence at all) just to say stuff?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2020, 03:02:44 AM »
He's pure hyperbole....

50 years we haven't gone back, why? We never went and today it would be impossible to pull the sham off. Kinda like the fake chemical attacks in Syria. All bulshi !!!
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2020, 05:28:44 AM »
He's pure hyperbole....

50 years we haven't gone back, why? We never went and today it would be impossible to pull the sham off. Kinda like the fake chemical attacks in Syria. All bulshi !!!

Yep, pure hyperbole...On your part. Without evidence, as usual. How about a little evidence instead of hyperbole. It would be nice for a change.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2020, 08:23:06 AM »
50 years we haven't gone back, why?

... because the only manned program (Apollo) was cancelled in 1972, and no other Space Agency or Govt has been inclined to put up either the money or the effort to do so.

Plenty of unmanned missions since 1972. Don't they count?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2020, 08:26:50 AM »
Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

... yet every illustration and schematic shows them to house the orbital reaction control system. And there's no air intakes.

I seem to recall when the shuttles came into land, they had Air Force jets flying in parallel with them, presumably for tracking and/or observation purposes.

Perhaps those are what you hear on the videos ....?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2020, 08:30:53 AM »
Those bulbous areas house jet engines.

... yet every illustration and schematic shows them to house the orbital reaction control system. And there's no air intakes.

I seem to recall when the shuttles came into land, they had Air Force jets flying in parallel with them, presumably for tracking and/or observation purposes.

Perhaps those are what you hear on the videos ....?
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2020, 08:42:09 AM »
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.

Well, I seem to recall them BECAUSE I saw them, probably in a news report on TV, rather than a video.

Which videos have the sound you refer to?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2020, 08:53:47 AM »
Well, that might be a good explanation if you saw the jets accompanying the shuttle also landing, but they don't.

Those jets continue flying and do not land on the same airstrip.

Plus, you distinctly hear the sound of the jet engines winding down and then shutting off as the shuttle rolls to  a total stop.

Well, I seem to recall them BECAUSE I saw them, probably in a news report on TV, rather than a video.

Which videos have the sound you refer to?
I am not denying the jets.

They were typically T-38's.

I know there is video posted here or the other site.

I will try to find it...

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2020, 09:07:17 AM »
Some of the noise can be heard here



This isn't the one I recall posted here, so I will continue my search.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2020, 09:22:37 AM »
There are illustrations, photos, videos all over the interwebs of the shuttle pilot control panel(s).

Are there any which show controls for these jet engines? In an absence of controls, how would they be operated?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2020, 09:48:06 AM »
There are illustrations, photos, videos all over the interwebs of the shuttle pilot control panel(s).

Are there any which show controls for these jet engines? In an absence of controls, how would they be operated?
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2020, 11:05:58 AM »
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?

If you can't identify something with which the pilot would control them, then you're in the position of having to show that they were  - A - disguised as other controls, B - hidden on another control panel which has never been  photographed, or C - totally automated.

There's also the issue of a total absence of exhaust product from these "jet" engines ...

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2020, 11:12:04 AM »
Is your issue that these photos would need to depict the exact same layout as a jet in order to qualify as a jet control?

If you can't identify something with which the pilot would control them, then you're in the position of having to show that they were  - A - disguised as other controls, B - hidden on another control panel which has never been  photographed, or C - totally automated.

There's also the issue of a total absence of exhaust product from these "jet" engines ...
Actually I would not need to show anything of the sort.

The presence of the exact same sounds is enough.

How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2020, 12:26:29 PM »
How many videos show the presence of jet exhaust from jets when they are landing?

I can't say precisely how many, but here's a few;

Note when the engines cross the top of the tree line;



At 0.05, 0.58, when the engines cross the tree line, at 1.50, and so on ....

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2020, 01:25:00 PM »
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2020, 05:50:09 PM »
lackey is derailing this thread with the thing about the Space Shuttle having jet engines.
I mean, it didn't, but even if it did, so what? What would be the significance?
All he has done in this thread is make vague assertions and provided no evidence for any of them.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

totallackey

Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2020, 04:08:07 AM »
lackey is derailing this thread with the thing about the Space Shuttle having jet engines.
I mean, it didn't, but even if it did, so what? What would be the significance?
All he has done in this thread is make vague assertions and provided no evidence for any of them.
You brought the issue of the space shuttle up.

Then want to blame me?

Fact is, rockets cannot operate in a vacuum.

Free expansion states that gas, when released in a vacuum, does zero work. That's scientific fact.

*

Online J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2020, 04:25:05 AM »
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?



At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1602
    • View Profile
Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2020, 04:58:51 AM »
STS-131 - at 6m15s or so, do you see any indication of anything coming from any of the engines?



At 5;20 mark we have the shuttle at 370 mph with 30 seconds to touch down. Give me a break, I mean BRAKE, no way in hell your slowing that bird to shoot deployment from 370 MPH, thus cutaway and approx 120 mph touchdown !!! All bulshi.....

I'm not sure I understand what your point is. That the shuttle was going 370 mph and then landed at a slower speed? And that is somehow fake and evidence of what? Please explain.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.