Putin: Don't Mess With Nuclear Russia

[fskimospy]

Because dust behaves differently on the moon than on the earth. There is no air to push additional dust around other than what is hit directly by the rocket exhaust.

I noticed that you've abandoned your other arguments about the nature of the lander. Does this mean you've realized they were wrong?

Seriously though, whoever you are getting this information from is playing you for a fool.

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to educate anyone caught up in believing some of these conspiracy theories, esp. like the moon landings, will be an exercise in utter futility. They don't want facts, only to believe that "they" are lying to us and "their" ultimate goal is WORLD DOMINATION!

The nutters just desperately want and need to believe this crap--it gives them some sort of "power" they lack in real life, like the "power" that they see the "truth" that everyone else doesn't.

It's sad, really.

Yeah, probably true. I remember reading a paper somewhere that when conspiracy theorists are confronted with contrary evidence they just believe in the conspiracy more strongly.

 

[MrPickins]

Yep, but its Alex Jones, the sky is falling with chemtrails on us!

Don't forget the black helicopters that have been following him since the late 90's.

 

[IronWing]

Don't forget the black helicopters that have been following him since the late 90's.

Helicopters on the moon, whoa!

 

[MrPickins]

Edit: Beaten to the punch by eskimospy

besides i can tell you that you cant regulate the force applied by such engines, a rocket engine work at maximum power or doesnt work at all, ther s no mean to reduce its thrust let s say by a half and that s why 80% of the non inhabited landings on the moon ended in crashes,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System

The design and development of the innovative thrust chamber and pintle design is credited to TRW Aerospace Engineer Dr. Peter Staudhammer.[4] The engine could throttle between 1,050 pounds-force (4.7 kN) and 10,125 pounds-force (45.04 kN) but operation between 65% and 92.5% thrust was avoided to prevent excessive nozzle erosion. It weighed 394 pounds (179 kg), with a length of 90.5 inches (230 cm) and diameter of 59.0 inches (150 cm).

Who took the picture.? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-timer

Are you stupid or something?

 

[MrPickins]

Helicopters on the moon, whoa!

They bring their own air supply for the rotor to bite against.

 

[Screech]

lol @ this thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon

hell, even mythbusters pointed a laser at one of them to show that it was there in their 'moon hoax people are retards' episode

 

[MrPickins]

lol @ this thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector#On_the_Moon

hell, even mythbusters pointed a laser at one of them to show that it was there in their 'moon hoax people are retards' episode

Those were put there by robots.

 

[Abwx]

Because dust behaves differently on the moon than on the earth. There is no air to push additional dust around other than what is hit directly by the rocket exhaust.

The foot should be dusted, even if we use the 51.82 kg as basis it is impossible that there s not a single particule that was left on the foot.

I noticed that you've abandoned your other arguments about the nature of the lander. Does this mean you've realized they were wrong?

Not at all , it s obvious that this is a piece of garbage and a mock of a spacecraft but there s arguments that are more easily understood by most people, hence the (apparently only) extended discourse since there s so much things that are odd, we have quite the choice.

Seriously though, whoever you are getting this information from is playing you for a fool.

I noticed that the believers dont have scientifical background generaly, i m not talking of all people by there, Haybusarider or yourself seems to have some culture, i wont negate it even if i do not agree with a lot of his opinions (more often with you must admit).

Also there s a member that mentionned that skeptical people are called nutters, wich is a prove that the pro appolo belivers are left using deffamation as a mean to downplay the skeptic, people with real arguments do not ressort to such name callings.

Even the guy that designed the Hasselblad cameras ordered by the nasa find the things quite disturbing :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ

Those were put there by robots.

Did you put them yourself to be sure that they re actualy there..??.

People who know that light is an electromagnetic wave also know that a radar will give you the same precision in measuring a distance as a laser, others are gullibly believing that only a laser could be used for such measurements and will conclude that reflectors could only have been put on the moon...

 

[Screech]

Did you put them yourself to be sure that they re actualy there..??.

People who know that light is an electromagnetic wave also know that a radar will give you the same precision in measuring a distance as a laser, others are gullibly believing that only a laser could be used for such measurements and will conclude that reflectors could only have been put on the moon...

lol, yeah, im sure mythbusters is on the evil government payroll and actually used a radar to look at something not on the moon

oh wait

http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

this is why people are laughing at you.....to make an analogy: if you wanted to discuss the best way to solve your favorite differential equation, there might be something there to discuss, but if you are simply insisting that 2+2=5, then really there is nothing to discuss and you are an ignorant fool, and it is hardly inaccurate for others to point this out. Granted, I'm sure you are simply trolling like that one guy in the 'the plane takes off thread', because really nobody could be this stupid, so its all good. rock on

 

[MrPickins]

Did you put them yourself to be sure that they re actualy there..??.

People who know that light is an electromagnetic wave also know that a radar will give you the same precision in measuring a distance as a laser, others are gullibly believing that only a laser could be used for such measurements and will conclude that reflectors could only have been put on the moon...

Common sense should tell you that if they weren't there, any group with an interest in making the US look bad would have proved it a hundred times over.

That's why most tinfoil-hatters admit the retro-reflectors are there, but claim they were placed by remote controlled probes/rovers.

Get your conspiracy theories straight...

 

[Thebobo]

Foot steps on the moon.

 

[Abwx]

Common sense should tell you that, if they weren't there, any group with an interest in making the US look bad would have proved it a hundred times over.

How could they prove it..??

By sending probes.??.

That's why most tinfoil-hatters admit the retro-reflectors are there, but claim they were placed by remote controlled probes/rovers.

Get your conspiracy theories straight...

Even control remote controled probes would ve somewhat doubtfull, i think that distance measurements were radar processed, frankly what is the use of a laser reflector since the moon surface will reflect electromagnetical waves that are much longer than light wave very easily.

I told people that 80% of remote controled probe didnt manage anything else that crashing in the moon and this up to our times, that s 4 out of 5, yet we have people believing that a much more complexe scheme involving a huge number of dependencies for the result to be successfull could had been proceded 6 times consecutively without the slightest incident, it s like shooting yourself 6 times consecutively with a gun that contain 5 (4.8 statisticaly) rounds and not being killed, and that s assuming that it s a simple probe, just imagine something complexe like the appollo program, probability will rise to 99%...at least.

As for the tin foil hatters moniker i guess that it s a mean to entrench people by saying that if they do not believe the official version they will be pointed as brainless, that is some kind of intellectual terrorism, in short believe or you ll be banned from the community, really a poor strategy that aknowledge the lack of real arguments by denying the skeptic any intellectual capability, yet i m the only one that use scientificaly valuable arguments, others are left creating deffamation monikers.

 

[fskimospy]

What we are saying is that you have gotten ahold of a lot of bad information and aren't thinking rationally.

The way you thought the descent engine worked was simply wrong.

The way you thought it wasn't possible to slow down to enter lunar orbit is wrong.

You didn't know how they took that picture.

Your concept of the physics of dust on the moon is wrong.

Most of this information is publicly available. Considering the number of basic facts that you had wrong about the lander and such, at what point do you start to question your overall theory?

 

[Abwx]

What we are saying is that you have gotten ahold of a lot of bad information and aren't thinking rationally.

The way you thought the descent engine worked was simply wrong.

This doesnt invalidate the fact that the foot was left as clean as if it was water washed and you havent provided any explanation about this miracle, seems that you re risk averse to the point of pretending the other wrong but still not providing any methodicaly built opinion...

His calculations are indeed wrong as the engine would produce the same pressure on earth but the difference is that it would eject 6 times less dust given earth gravity, yet the guy is assuming that the dust density is 1.3 tons/m^3 , wich is right but if it weight 1.3 tons in earth it will weight only 0.216 tons in the moon....

The way you thought it wasn't possible to slow down to enter lunar orbit is wrong.

Explain me how they slowed their motion from 10km/s to 1.5km/s without crashing in the moon, i m waiting for your explanations if there are some.

You didn't know how they took that picture.

Tell us how they did because it s a portable Haselblad camera that was supposed to be fixed on the chest of one of the astronots, hence the question wich is still unanswered...

Your concept of the physics of dust on the moon is wrong.

My concepts are right and much more reliable than a guy that pretend that the dust stayed immobile while storing kinetic energy untill it was ejected at 1000m/s, he simply increased hugely the dust speed to reduce the other factor accordingly , that is the mass of dust, as a mean to negate that a crater would be formed, you have trouble understanding a basic rule of three and obviously spined equations.

Most of this information is publicly available. Considering the number of basic facts that you had wrong about the lander and such, at what point do you start to question your overall theory?

Most of the biaised and unscientific info should you add....

The Hasselblad camera :

Hasselblad camera 500 EL with opened seeker without automatic device,
and the astronauts cannot look through the seeker...

This doesnt bode well with photos were everyting is perfectly centered....

http://www.geschichteinchronologie....moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

 

[fskimospy]

This doesnt invalidate the fact that the foot was left as clean as if it was water washed and you havent provided any explanation about this miracle, seems that you re risk averse to the point of pretending the other wrong but still not providing any methodicaly built opinion...

Drawing that conclusion from that distance with that photo quality is impossible. More importantly, the lack of air on the moon makes the physics of dust dispersal dramatically different than on earth.

Explain me how they slowed their motion from 10km/s to 1.5km/s without crashing in the moon, i m waiting for your explanations if there are some.

This is a publicly available part of the mission. Search for "lunar orbit insertion" to learn about the engine burns they used to slow down and settle into lunar orbit. You can even do the calculations yourself if you feel like it.

Tell us how they did because it s a portable Haselblad camera that was supposed to be fixed on the chest of one of the astronots, hence the question wich is still unanswered...

They had many cameras.

My concepts are right and much more reliable than a guy that pretend that the dust stayed immobile while storing kinetic energy untill it was ejected at 1000m/s, he simply increased hugely the dust speed to reduce the other factor accordingly , that is the mass of dust, as a mean to negate that a crater would be formed, you have trouble understanding a basic rule of three and obviously spined equations.

That's not what it said at all. I suggest you read it again.

Most of the biaised and unscientific info should you add....

The Hasselblad camera :

This doesnt bode well with photos were everyting is perfectly centered....

http://www.geschichteinchronologie....moon-photographer-foto-compositions-ENGL.html

They had many cameras and they took tons and tons of photos. They only published the good ones. Come on, that's common sense.

So again, that's I don't even know how many more conspiracy theories knocked down. How many does it take before you start thinking you might be wrong?

 

[MrPickins]

How could they prove it..??

By sending probes.??.

By aiming a laser at the specified coordinates and checking for a return signal..??.

 

[Abwx]

By aiming a laser at the specified coordinates and checking for a return signal..??.

And what would be the prove that a signal came back, i can tell you as well that i used a laser and in fact i used a radar, how could you then tell me the difference..??.

 

[fskimospy]

By aiming a laser at the specified coordinates and checking for a return signal..??.

I wonder what the response to that will be. This is an experiment that is repeatable and empirically proveable.

What's also strange is that landing on the moon was perhaps the most incredible achievement in human history. Why would you be so invested in trying to convince yourself it didn't happen?

 

[Thebobo]

So even today this new group of NASA folk is under this conspiracy as well?

You suspect a group of folks worked at photoshopping little feet marks on the moons surface?

Astronaut Pete Conrad studies the Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which Apollo 12's
lunar module (top right) landed close to.

Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

 

[MongGrel]

You've probably never heard of the Topol M, and the development of the PAK-DA.

Intersting doc about the supersonic Tu-160 blackjack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdHP-lbWUqg, though I will mention these planes are in desperate need of avionics upgrade.

Of course I have.

 

[MongGrel]

And what would be the prove that a signal came back, i can tell you as well that i used a laser and in fact i used a radar, how could you then tell me the difference..??.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY

 

[MrPickins]

Tell us how they did because it s a portable Haselblad camera that was supposed to be fixed on the chest of one of the astronots, hence the question wich is still unanswered...

As for that image, I am unable to find it via google image search, and it appears to be a photoshopped version of this pic:

Keep it up! This is fun.


Edit:

This doesnt bode well with photos were everyting is perfectly centered....

You realize that NASA cropped a ton of the pictures before releasing them to the media for aesthetic purposes?

 

[Abwx]

Drawing that conclusion from that distance with that photo quality is impossible. More importantly, the lack of air on the moon makes the physics of dust dispersal dramatically different than on earth.

Main thing is that there will be no air resistance to slow down the ejectas, things will move purely balisticaly according to the laws of gravity...

This is a publicly available part of the mission. Search for "lunar orbit insertion" to learn about the engine burns they used to slow down and settle into lunar orbit. You can even do the calculations yourself if you feel like it.

Try to calculate the kinetic energy that must be dissipated/compensated for an item that would be just one ton to be deccelerated from 10km/s to 1.5km/s , you ll be surprised by the amount of necessary fuel, and still , this is not as difficult as on earth...

They had many cameras.

They had many cameras and they took tons and tons of photos. They only published the good ones. Come on, that's common sense.

And surely a lots of hands as well, but how could a camera fixed on a chest take the photo below..??.

So again, that's I don't even know how many more conspiracy theories knocked down. How many does it take before you start thinking you might be wrong?

Actualy the more i read the more i can only aknowledge that people are terribly gullible.

And not only the camera, the Hasselblad designer clearly said that this guy seems to be under a spot light, indeed the sun is on his back, how could be the surface behind him be that badly shadowed under a 1400W/m^2 sun..??..

 

[PottedMeat]

And what would be the prove that a signal came back, i can tell you as well that i used a laser and in fact i used a radar, how could you then tell me the difference..??.

wat?