• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

Status
Not open for further replies.
little grey rabbit said:
aren't all bolts non-explosive?

Edit: you are confusing me here. I thought explosive bolts were the secret ingredient that enable a Lunar Module to lift off from the surface yet still leave this lovely shadow casting structure intact. Presumably there was some local relaxation of Newton's third law.

Before you seem to be saying the secret to lift off was explosive bolts. Now they are non-explosive. Can I get clarification here.
Click to expand...


Wire cables and piping ran from the Ascent Module into the Descent Module and explosive bolts held the two modules together. They were detonated 5 seconds before lift-off.
 
Well since you are such a helpful resource.

Can I refer you to this very nice youtube clip from Matt

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

Now when I have considered your excellent movies I have presumed that in order to make your scenario work you must have include some kind of thruster going downwards for landing - to slow speed and not crash.
And again - and I stress this was just my assumptions here - these same thrusters were used, at an obviously higher output, to get off the surface again (correct me if I am wrong).

Was this a combustion based thruster, what was its fuel and did it produce flames (although obviously not flames or force enough to damage the Descent Stage or whatever it was)?

You are correct, I am too lazy to research this for myself and since you seem to know this stuff and have nothing better to do, you might as well tell me.
 
little grey rabbit said:
You are correct, I am too lazy to research this for myself and since you seem to know this stuff and have nothing better to do, you might as well tell me.
Click to expand...


What is your principal piece of evidence showing that the Apollo missions were a hoax? You've obviously not looked at anything in much detail, as you've (repeatedly) admitted.

If you continue to refuse to answer, it'll be obvious that you are just trolling.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Well since you are such a helpful resource.

Can I refer you to this very nice youtube clip from Matt

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

Now when I have considered your excellent movies I have presumed that in order to make your scenario work you must have include some kind of thruster going downwards for landing - to slow speed and not crash.
And again - and I stress this was just my assumptions here - these same thrusters were used, at an obviously higher output, to get off the surface again (correct me if I am wrong).

Was this a combustion based thruster, what was its fuel and did it produce flames (although obviously not flames or force enough to damage the Descent Stage or whatever it was)?

You are correct, I am too lazy to research this for myself and since you seem to know this stuff and have nothing better to do, you might as well tell me.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. There was a separate ascent engine and fuel.

ETA: The fuel for the ascent stage was hypergolic (look it up) there is a 'flame' but it is blue like on the Gemini-Titan II.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift said:
You are wrong. There was a separate ascent engine and fuel.
Click to expand...

Cool, different engine and but same TYPE of fuel? What was it?
Did it produce flames for its thrust?

Again, if I had been the Director I would have left that Descent Stage as a collection of matchstick pieces on the ground.

The audience always loves a good demolition.
 
Right a miserable excuse for sun has appeared so outsy doorsy for yours truly.

If anyone can help me with my fuel and flames question and why that Descent Stage wasn't obliterated in an entertaining inferno of man's mastery over nature - I will check in this evening.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Well since you are such a helpful resource.

Can I refer you to this very nice youtube clip from Matt

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

Now when I have considered your excellent movies I have presumed that in order to make your scenario work you must have include some kind of thruster going downwards for landing - to slow speed and not crash.
And again - and I stress this was just my assumptions here - these same thrusters were used, at an obviously higher output, to get off the surface again (correct me if I am wrong).

Was this a combustion based thruster, what was its fuel and did it produce flames (although obviously not flames or force enough to damage the Descent Stage or whatever it was)?

You are correct, I am too lazy to research this for myself and since you seem to know this stuff and have nothing better to do, you might as well tell me.
Click to expand...

The Ascent Module had its own rocket which burned Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide. It produced a very faint exhaust. It is visible in the engine bell of the Apollo 17 lift-off from the Moon after the Ascent Module pitches over in this video. Skip ahead to 1:00.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v.1880034.rm
 
little grey rabbit said:
If anyone can help me with my fuel and flames question and why that Descent Stage wasn't obliterated in an entertaining inferno of man's mastery over nature - I will check in this evening.
Click to expand...
The Gish gallop continues...

The descent stage wasn't "obliterated" for the same reason a runway isn't shredded by a Harrier jet taking off - the force needed to take off was not sufficiently large to overcome the stuctural integrity of whatever was underneath.

You will of course claim this is "obviously" nonsense without doing anything to back up your opinion. Because you aren't interested in the answers. You are just making rubbish up while proudly stating that you have no interest in whether you are raising rational concerns or not. Because it's just all about the attention.

Once again, you could go some way towards showing that you aren't a troll by giving some sort of reasoning for your anticipated rejection of the above explanation. How much thrust was the LM ascent engine producing? Can you show that this would create structural problems for a surface specifically designed to be used as a launch platform for that engine? No? Then why make the claim unless your motivation is just to cast around for another excuse for you to give us more taunts and nonsequiturs?
 
Just for fun, here's the series of claims lgr made, all except the last very wrong. The last is just mostly wrong.
  1. Both photograghs were made at the time of the landing.
  2. The LM was a single, monolithic unit.
  3. The same (rocket) engine must have been used for both stages.
  4. The descent stage was too small to cast the shadow.
  5. The decent stage should have been destroyed by the liftoff of the ascent stage.
  6. The descent stage should have been intentionally destroyed.
  7. The ascent stage exhaust ("flame") should damage the descent stage.
5 and 7 are nearly the same thing. S/he also expressed incredulity about explosive bolts, which have been in use for decades.
ETA: 2 and 4 are pretty much the same argument Jack White made when the LRO picture was first published, right down to the apparant ignorance of the LM.
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Cool, different engine and but same TYPE of fuel? What was it?
Did it produce flames for its thrust?

Again, if I had been the Director I would have left that Descent Stage as a collection of matchstick pieces on the ground.

The audience always loves a good demolition.
Click to expand...
Maybe NASA should get the Mythbusters involved in the next missions to improve the TV ratings.

So let me get this straight. LGR knows diddlysquat about the LM, and yet feels compelled to insist things about it?

Why? You guys have really pathetic HB's here. I'm going back to Delusional Idiots. At least those guys make stuff up that's creative and interesting.
 
AdMan said:
What is your principal piece of evidence showing that the Apollo missions were a hoax? You've obviously not looked at anything in much detail, as you've (repeatedly) admitted.

If you continue to refuse to answer, it'll be obvious that you are just trolling.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. This

as11_40_5903.jpg


I am busy right now, but I will be back later this evening, if you have any further questions. But its self-explanatory, right?

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed off-topic comments
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, I am almost certainly being spun a line.

I keep coming back to the sticking point, no decent person would allow such a monstrous situation to keep running.
 
AdMan said:
This picture is your main proof the Apollo missions were a hoax? Please explain.
.
Click to expand...

So leaving aside the fact that there seems to be an intense focus of light in the middle of the shot, you can tell by the limited spectra that it is shot under artificial light.

A typical fluorescent light has this spectra
Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_peaks_labelled.png


Whereas sunlight is far fuller
Solar_Spectrum.png


You have to remember what we see as moon light is reflected light, but what you experience of the moon's surface is direct sunlight that would be more intense even that midday at the equator.
 
Nice work with the graphs and pictures there LGR. They really give the appearance that you've actually done some proper analysis, while still allowing you to just make stuff up to support your position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom