New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

So you don't die stupid

Days

Commentator
Do you know what blocks your view of the stars? The atmosphere. Honest. Light is diffused in a gas, any gas, so when sunlight hits our atmosphere (or man made light will do this also) the atmosphere lights up. The lit atmosphere blocks out the stars behind it. If you travel past the atmosphere, there is nothing to block the stars, space doesn't diffuse light. The sun is just a closer star, it only blocks the stars directly behind it. 99.9999% of the Milky Way galaxy is not going to be blocked by our sun. Get beyond the atmosphere and you have nothing between you and the stars.

Gerald P Carr, commander of Skylab 4, was my college best friend's dad. I've been over to his place and remember asking him, "What was the thing that struck you the most being in space?" His answer was immediate, "the stars". I was kind of surprised, I was expecting something a little more technical. I asked him, why the stars? He said they were just incredible, every where you looked the sky was chock full of stars, they were so bright and spectacular to look at.

 

Days

Commentator
Let's touch back on fuel consumption. Here's a trick math question:

The earth is 8000 miles in diameter. If it takes Johnny, the astro-Not, 2 giant booster rockets to fly 250 miles high at 17,000 mph... how many booster rockets does Johnny need to increase speed to 25,000 mph and reach 1000 miles high?

extra credit:

how many booster rockets does Johnny need to fly 4000 miles high at 25,000 mph?

And finally, how many rocket boosters does NASA supply Johnny for his trip to the moon?

two.

... that's enough to make it into low earth orbit, and return to the earth.

The earth's gravity is supposed to weaken real fast as you travel away from the earth; so at 4000 miles away from earth, gravitational pull is only 1/4 what it is on the earth's surface. sounds pretty weak, but let's work with it.

Let's work this out. Dividing the trip to 4000 miles by 250 mile segments, we get 16 stages of 250 miles each. So, using two rocket boosters for the first stage and dividing the strength of gravitational pull to come out 25% at 4000 miles we find we need for each stage:

1) 2 rocket boosters
2) 1.9 rocket boosters
3) 1.8 rocket boosters
4) 1.7 rocket boosters
5) 1.6 rocket boosters
6) 1.5 rocket boosters
7) 1.4 rocket boosters
8) 1.3 rocket boosters
9) 1.2 rocket boosters
10) 1.1 rocket boosters
11) 1 rocket booster
12) 0.9 of a rocket booster
13) 0.8 of a rocket booster
14) 0.7 of a rocket booster
15) 0.6 of a rocket booster
16) 0.5 of a rocket booster

So, the answer to the first question is ...
it takes Johnny - at least - 7.4 rocket boosters to reach 1000 miles high.

And the answer to the extra credit question is ...
it takes Johnny - at least - 20 rocket boosters to reach 4000 miles high.

And the Apollo missions didn't even make it 250 miles high. I've been asking this simple question for a decade, because there's no way to get around it, if you required 2 giant booster rockets just to reach low earth orbit, how did the same cabin and crew make it all the rest of the way to the moon on the fuel left in the command module? The earth's gravitational pull is still 95% at 250 miles up, if you have used up all your fuel... you are not going any higher.

So, let's look at the command module, how much fuel did it carry? Try to figure out where that fuel was stored...


This is why the exhibit at Smithsonian has little green men, 3 feet tall in space suits... to make you believe they fit in that capsule. Another quickie.... The LEM sat on top of the command module, it was accessed by the top hatch in the command module. Okay, but how about the consumables? Where was all that stored? Would you believe...

 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
Let's touch back on fuel consumption. Here's a trick math question:

The earth is 8000 miles in diameter. If it takes Johnny, the astro-Not, 2 giant booster rockets to fly 250 miles high at 17,000 mph... how many booster rockets does Johnny need to increase speed to 25,000 mph and reach 1000 miles high?

extra credit:

how many booster rockets does Johnny need to fly 4000 miles high at 25,000 mph?

And finally, how many rocket boosters does NASA supply Johnny for his trip to the moon?

two.

... that's enough to make it into low earth orbit, and return to the earth.

The earth's gravity is supposed to weaken real fast as you travel away from the earth; so at 4000 miles away from earth, gravitational pull is only 1/4 what it is on the earth's surface. sounds pretty weak, but let's work with it.

Let's work this out. Dividing the trip to 4000 miles by 250 mile segments, we get 16 stages of 250 miles each. So, using two rocket boosters for the first stage and dividing the strength of gravitational pull to come out 25% at 4000 miles we find we need for each stage:

1) 2 rocket boosters
2) 1.9 rocket boosters
3) 1.8 rocket boosters
4) 1.7 rocket boosters
5) 1.6 rocket boosters
6) 1.5 rocket boosters
7) 1.4 rocket boosters
8) 1.3 rocket boosters
9) 1.2 rocket boosters
10) 1.1 rocket boosters
11) 1 rocket booster
12) 0.9 of a rocket booster
13) 0.8 of a rocket booster
14) 0.7 of a rocket booster
15) 0.6 of a rocket booster
16) 0.5 of a rocket booster

So, the answer to the first question is ...
it takes Johnny - at least - 7.4 rocket boosters to reach 1000 miles high.

And the answer to the extra credit question is ...
it takes Johnny - at least - 20 rocket boosters to reach 4000 miles high.

And the Apollo missions didn't even make it 250 miles high. I've been asking this simple question for a decade, because there's no way to get around it, if you required 2 giant booster rockets just to reach low earth orbit, how did the same cabin and crew make it all the rest of the way to the moon on the fuel left in the command module? The earth's gravitational pull is still 95% at 250 miles up, if you have used up all your fuel... you are not going any higher.

So, let's look at the command module, how much fuel did it carry? Try to figure out where that fuel was stored...


This is why the exhibit at Smithsonian has little green men, 3 feet tall in space suits... to make you believe they fit in that capsule. Another quickie.... The LEM sat on top of the command module, it was accessed by the top hatch in the command module. Okay, but how about the consumables? Where was all that stored? Would you believe...

Is it sinking in yet? Apollo Saturn 5 rockets were 3 stage rockets; which, the first stage consisted of a LEM, command module, and service module; which was actually two mini rockets connected by a hatch, (the LEM was upside down) all sitting on top of two rocket boosters that were much larger, all the fuel was in the lower two stages, and those two rocket boosters were burned up in strict fashion; the first and largest rocket booster burned for about 15 minutes and raised the rocket to 200 miles and it was spent and discarded, then the 2nd rocket booster burned for another 15 minutes and sped the craft to 17,000 mph (speed of orbit) and it was spent and discarded, at which point, all that was left was the command module rocket which was packed with men, equipment, and supplies... so, just 30 minutes after blast off, all you had was the command module in orbit and there was no fuel left to go any higher. Since, there was no way to access the service module from the command module, and everything needed for the time in space was in the service module, the only thing left to do was orbit for a while, then return to earth. There was no food or water for the crew, that stuff was all in the service module; there was no space walks on the Apollo missions.

Apollo missions were 3 stage rockets that spent the 2 booster rockets making it into low earth orbit. So that was their full capacity of flight, 95% of the rocket fuel was in the thick lower stages, that was the rocket, the rocket is spent getting off the ground and into low earth orbit, then the entire rocket is spent, discarded, and the trip is over, folks. No where to go but down from there. In all likelihood, the real purpose of the LEM rocket was to slow the craft down, so that it fell out of orbit, then turn it so it pointed up, at which point the LEM was jettisoned and the command rocket was used to descend back to earth, finally the service module, which was really filled with fuel, was discarded, and the command capsule popped its parachutes. Days later, the astronauts performed yet another landing exercise where they were dropped from a C130 cargo plane, popped their chutes, and floated to earth right on target for the cameras.
 

Days

Commentator
Is it sinking in yet? Apollo Saturn 5 rockets were 3 stage rockets; which, the first stage consisted of a LEM, command module, and service module; which was actually two mini rockets connected by a hatch, (the LEM was upside down) all sitting on top of two rocket boosters that were much larger, all the fuel was in the lower two stages, and those two rocket boosters were burned up in strict fashion; the first and largest rocket booster burned for about 15 minutes and raised the rocket to 200 miles and it was spent and discarded, then the 2nd rocket booster burned for another 15 minutes and sped the craft to 17,000 mph (speed of orbit) and it was spent and discarded, at which point, all that was left was the command module rocket which was packed with men, equipment, and supplies... so, just 30 minutes after blast off, all you had was the command module in orbit and there was no fuel left to go any higher. Since, there was no way to access the service module from the command module, and everything needed for the time in space was in the service module, the only thing left to do was orbit for a while, then return to earth. There was no food or water for the crew, that stuff was all in the service module; there was no space walks on the Apollo missions.

Apollo missions were 3 stage rockets that spent the 2 booster rockets making it into low earth orbit. So that was their full capacity of flight, 95% of the rocket fuel was in the thick lower stages, that was the rocket, the rocket is spent getting off the ground and into low earth orbit, then the entire rocket is spent, discarded, and the trip is over, folks. No where to go but down from there. In all likelihood, the real purpose of the LEM rocket was to slow the craft down, so that it fell out of orbit, then turn it so it pointed up, at which point the LEM was jettisoned and the command rocket was used to descend back to earth, finally the service module, which was really filled with fuel, was discarded, and the command capsule popped its parachutes. Days later, the astronauts performed yet another landing exercise where they were dropped from a C130 cargo plane, popped their chutes, and floated to earth right on target for the cameras.
The moon hoax was performed by making a movie in advance at their moon studios, which they did for every mission and admitted they were doing - as training exercises - they had full studio production going to make the movie, right down to projection on rails to depict the moon landing. Then they also bought the same radar equipment used to broadcast from the SEP 1964 Tokyo Olympics, the first television broadcast to bounce off the Pacific geostationary satellite, which was also the first successful geosat Clark orbit, just launched earlier that year. This was cutting edge technology for 1965, which was when all the Apollo mission equipment was ordered and paid for. So they built a 3 stage rocket that was only capable of low earth orbit and they made moon movies in a studio and on location in the Arizona desert, then they broadcast their moon movies utilizing the new satellite, only hitch being the signal was originally fuzzy as hell because of the way they tore that signal apart and reconstructed it, but they anticipated problems so they added the 200 foot micro dish in Australia to their (2) 85 foot dishes, which were the same 85 foot dishes built for Apollo that they just began using for the new Clark orbit (22,000 miles up; 1/10th the distance to the moon) satellite. This was back in the day of analog television signals - before digital - so range was a serious issue.

The point I'm making is simple; the entire mission was designed from the gitgo to go into low earth orbit, return, then broadcast pre-made moon movies on and off for a week, utilizing the new geostationary Pacific satellite, and radar that was conveniently based on our west coast and Australia, in line of sight to the Pacific satellite (the geo stationary orbit remains fixed to the middle of the Pacific ocean). So, the rocket can't go any higher than low earth orbit, the movie production was in full swing before each mission, and the broadcast equipment was totally built to bounce a signal off of the Pacific satellite.

So you don't die stupid, stop believing stupid Apollo lies from NASA, the entire program was designed to go into low earth orbit and return to earth. It was the next step in space exploration and it was quite an achievement. What amazes me is NASA had the audacity to add a one ton dune buggy to the payload and pretend they needed no adjustment to their rocket fuel... I guess when space flight is so easy that you can make adjustments to your flight path with a simple calculator by hand! ... funny how all that 1960's technology worked like a charm at 25,000 mph. And let's not forget, the moon missions were flown during solar maximum, when deadly solar flares were constantly filling "outer space" - space beyond 350 miles up. They put dosimeters on the Apollo rockets and all the missions returned with no radiation, hence, they never left low earth orbit, but NASA covered for that by saying there was no radiation is space, they even had Van Allen himself retract his estimates of radiation in the belts, which would have been buzzing with solar maximum, and they lied through their teeth about every last solar flare that happened during the missions - claiming that there was zero activity for every single mission. Decades later, I found in the journals at NASA letters from Sun studies to the Apollo engineers, asking why they had said the solar flares didn't happen, and the response (inter departmental response, never made public) was, "my bad, yep there was bunch of flares and here's the magnetic charge for each of them" ... and with that, sun studies could confirm their data against the magnetic measurements that Apollo engineers recorded ... and then lied to the public and pretended didn't happen.

About half a decade before our Apollo missions took place, the Soviets sent a dog up into the Van Allen belts, the mission flew an orbit for 11 or 12 days in the radiation belts, then returned. The dog died. The Soviets claimed the dog lived for 10 days. Decades later, Russia declassified those docs and we learned the dog died on the first day in the Van Allen belts. People argue that Apollo missions would have flown through the radiation belts before the radiation dose got very big, but then they have to pretend that the direct exposure to solar flares was no big deal... even though we now know that one major flare would have been deadly ... all of this ignores the dosimeter readings for the missions that plainly read zero, they never entered the Van Allen belts, let alone space beyond the belts. Indeed, their rocket stages were only capable of reaching low earth orbit. And the moon movies had range limitation to the Clark orbit (22,000 miles out, 1/10th the way to the moon). The entire mission was low earth orbit by design! NASA only put dosimeters on Apollo craft so they could record radiation in low earth orbit... because they intended to continue to fly manned missions into low earth orbit. DUH
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
The moon hoax was performed by making a movie in advance at their moon studios, which they did for every mission and admitted they were doing - as training exercises - they had full studio production going to make the movie, right down to projection on rails to depict the moon landing. Then they also bought the same radar equipment used to broadcast from the SEP 1964 Tokyo Olympics, the first television broadcast to bounce off the Pacific geostationary satellite, which was also the first successful geosat Clark orbit, just launched earlier that year. This was cutting edge technology for 1965, which was when all the Apollo mission equipment was ordered and paid for. So they built a 3 stage rocket that was only capable of low earth orbit and they made moon movies in a studio and on location in the Arizona desert, then they broadcast their moon movies utilizing the new satellite, only hitch being the signal was originally fuzzy as hell because of the way they tore that signal apart and reconstructed it, but they anticipated problems so they added the 200 foot micro dish in Australia to their (2) 85 foot dishes, which were the same 85 foot dishes built for Apollo that they just began using for the new Clark orbit (22,000 miles up; 1/10th the distance to the moon) satellite. This was back in the day of analog television signals - before digital - so range was a serious issue.

The point I'm making is simple; the entire mission was designed from the gitgo to go into low earth orbit, return, then broadcast pre-made moon movies on and off for a week, utilizing the new geostationary Pacific satellite, and radar that was conveniently based on our west coast and Australia, in line of sight to the Pacific satellite (the geo stationary orbit remains fixed to the middle of the Pacific ocean). So, the rocket can't go any higher than low earth orbit, the movie production was in full swing before each mission, and the broadcast equipment was totally built to bounce a signal off of the Pacific satellite.

So you don't die stupid, stop believing stupid Apollo lies from NASA, the entire program was designed to go into low earth orbit and return to earth. It was the next step in space exploration and it was quite an achievement. What amazes me is NASA had the audacity to add a one ton dune buggy to the payload and pretend they needed no adjustment to their rocket fuel... I guess when space flight is so easy that you can make adjustments to your flight path with a simple calculator by hand! ... funny how all that 1960's technology worked like a charm at 25,000 mph. And let's not forget, the moon missions were flown during solar maximum, when deadly solar flares were constantly filling "outer space" - space beyond 350 miles up. They put dosimeters on the Apollo rockets and all the missions returned with no radiation, hence, they never left low earth orbit, but NASA covered for that by saying there was no radiation is space, they even had Van Allen himself retract his estimates of radiation in the belts, which would have been buzzing with solar maximum, and they lied through their teeth about every last solar flare that happened during the missions - claiming that there was zero activity for every single mission. Decades later, I found in the journals at NASA letters from Sun studies to the Apollo engineers, asking why they had said the solar flares didn't happen, and the response (inter departmental response, never made public) was, "my bad, yep there was bunch of flares and here's the magnetic charge for each of them" ... and with that, sun studies could confirm their data against the magnetic measurements that Apollo engineers recorded ... and then lied to the public and pretended didn't happen.

About half a decade before our Apollo missions took place, the Soviets sent a dog up into the Van Allen belts, the mission flew an orbit for 11 or 12 days in the radiation belts, then returned. The dog died. The Soviets claimed the dog lived for 10 days. Decades later, Russia declassified those docs and we learned the dog died on the first day in the Van Allen belts. People argue that Apollo missions would have flown through the radiation belts before the radiation dose got very big, but then they have to pretend that the direct exposure to solar flares was no big deal... even though we now know that one major flare would have been deadly ... all of this ignores the dosimeter readings for the missions that plainly read zero, they never entered the Van Allen belts, let alone space beyond the belts. Indeed, their rocket stages were only capable of reaching low earth orbit. And the moon movies had range limitation to the Clark orbit (22,000 miles out, 1/10th the way to the moon). The entire mission was low earth orbit by design! NASA only put dosimeters on Apollo craft so they could record radiation in low earth orbit... because they intended to continue to fly manned missions into low earth orbit. DUH


The magnetosphere of the earth traps high energy particles (the highest being 50-100 mv protons) spilled from the sun during solar flares (Solar Particle Events). The more intense the solar storm that fills the Van Allen belts, the more intense the radiation is that the magnetosphere traps. The most intense ions (100 mega-volt protons) can hold their charge for ten years, but they slowly die down, so it is important to avoid solar maximum, if you are insane enough to fly into the radiation belts. The worst solar storm of the 20th century happened just two weeks before the Apollo 17 mission. That mission returned with just 2 REM on its dosimeters, which means they never even went close to the radiation belts. There were also multiple solar particle events that happened during the Apollo missions which would have been just as lethal as the radiation belts were during the Apollo 17 mission. Apollo 11 might have survived the radiation belts, but not the solar flare that was firing while the astronauts supposedly walked on the moon. Five to six hundred REM at one time would have been enough to kill a man ... that's about what happened during the Apollo 11 mission. They returned with 1/7th of a REM on their dosimeters... all the missions returned with less than a single REM except Apollo 17, everyone flew in low earth orbit and likely used the LEM rocket and the command capsule rocket to slow down and re enter the earth's atmosphere. The Apollo missions took place in low earth orbit, which was quite an achievement. What a shame that they are forever tainted with the moon hoax.
 

Days

Commentator
Is it sinking in yet? Apollo Saturn 5 rockets were 3 stage rockets; which, the first stage consisted of a LEM, command module, and service module; which was actually two mini rockets connected by a hatch, (the LEM was upside down) all sitting on top of two rocket boosters that were much larger, all the fuel was in the lower two stages, and those two rocket boosters were burned up in strict fashion; the first and largest rocket booster burned for about 15 minutes and raised the rocket to 200 miles and it was spent and discarded, then the 2nd rocket booster burned for another 15 minutes and sped the craft to 17,000 mph (speed of orbit) and it was spent and discarded, at which point, all that was left was the command module rocket which was packed with men, equipment, and supplies... so, just 30 minutes after blast off, all you had was the command module in orbit and there was no fuel left to go any higher. Since, there was no way to access the service module from the command module, and everything needed for the time in space was in the service module, the only thing left to do was orbit for a while, then return to earth. There was no food or water for the crew, that stuff was all in the service module; there was no space walks on the Apollo missions.

Apollo missions were 3 stage rockets that spent the 2 booster rockets making it into low earth orbit. So that was their full capacity of flight, 95% of the rocket fuel was in the thick lower stages, that was the rocket, the rocket is spent getting off the ground and into low earth orbit, then the entire rocket is spent, discarded, and the trip is over, folks. No where to go but down from there. In all likelihood, the real purpose of the LEM rocket was to slow the craft down, so that it fell out of orbit, then turn it so it pointed up, at which point the LEM was jettisoned and the command rocket was used to descend back to earth, finally the service module, which was really filled with fuel, was discarded, and the command capsule popped its parachutes. Days later, the astronauts performed yet another landing exercise where they were dropped from a C130 cargo plane, popped their chutes, and floated to earth right on target for the cameras.
If you continue to scrutinize manned space flight right down to the present day, it is hard to believe that it ever really happened. Too many things make no sense. Too many times things went wrong and exposed their lies, too many times things went right and exposed their lies.

Look at this latest mishap in Russia. The Russian space ship was supposedly bringing food and supplies to the crew that is supposedly SOL on the intl space station right now. There was supposedly one cosmonaut and one American in the capsule. The missile did what so many missiles have done over time, it flipped and headed straight back down to earth, then exploded. This time it happened when they jettisoned the first rocket booster. Okay, there's nothing left of that rocket, it disintegrated into a giant fireball. What explodes first? The pressurized cabin or the rocket booster? The pressurized cabin; there is no oxygen in the rocket booster. The rocket booster would burn from the heat on the skin, but it wouldn't explode, it is the pressurized cabin that is exploding. The pressurized cabin would always explode if it entered the atmosphere at 17,000 mph, to think otherwise is incredulously gullible and just plain stupid.

So what did they do? They didn't want to have to hide these two guys the rest of their lives like the way they were forced to do with the Challenger crew. So they made the outrageous claim that the space capsule successfully ejected from the exploding rocket booster... nevermind there is no such emergency ejection for the entire space capsule, nevermind that the space capsule would have exploded before the rocket booster, nevermind that the capsule has no heat shield in front so it was toast anyway, even if they pulled off such a maneuver, all these incredible lies that will never ever be talked about or even asked them by the fake news media. They weren't ready to pull the cargo drop from an airplane so they just had the astronauts gear up at their hideout, go out into the street and ride around in some official vehicles, then floated the story that they just landed... without a scratch. No pics of the capsule they landed in, why would anyone take a picture of that? Of course not.

So the official story is so outrageous, and here we go again, no one questions any of it. Up and down it is totally impossible, but that's the magic of the space programs, they have carte blanche to lie. Remember, the official explanation for how those parachutes work is the space capsule slows down from 17,000 mph to what? 300 mph? just from hitting the atmosphere. They won't give that speed, but how fast can you go and still have those parachutes work? At what speed are they ripped right off as soon as they open? That hocus pocus was never going to work, but just for the fun of it, lets look at a meteorite, and let's see how much they slow down from hitting the atmosphere... ooops! Yeah, that doesn't work, there is a big difference between not accelerating from air friction and slowing down from air friction. If you are already slow to begin with, and you are light as a human with your arms spread wide, you won't accelerate too much, but if you are shaped like a rock, made out of metal, and travelling at 17,000 mph (In the case of Apollo make it 25,000 mph) you won't slow down very much... not that it matters, because as soon as the space capsule hits that oxygen, it heats up to 4000 degrees immediately and explodes, the aluminum melts from solid state into a liquid state at 1100 degrees, the explosion is immediate, the space capsule is not there to slow down, it is disintegrated. None of these capsules make it back to earth, there's a ton of space junk in orbit around the earth and every bit of it burns up the moment it hits oxygen, a pressurized cabin is going to explode, oxygen explodes, it is that simple. You can run a car on the oxygen explosion, all it takes is heat, just one spark to set it off, you don't need the entire capsule encircled with 1000 degrees, but that would definitely work. And that's all the hotter it would get, because the aluminum melts, the heat hits the oxygen in the pressurized cabin and it explodes, how is it going to reach 4000 degrees? It explodes long before it hits 1500 degrees. 4000 degrees would melt tungsten steel into a pool of liquid, nevermind aluminum, nobody has ever hit aluminum with an acetylene torch, that's overkill.

This latest rocket turned down and the 2nd stage rocket booster blasted it straight down to mother earth, like so many rockets have done, do you really believe they put humans into those rockets? We know they didn't put these astronauts onboard because they were safe and sound on the ground. We found the entire crew of the Challenger disaster living out their normal lives, sometimes under the same name. That teacher went right back to the same University and returned to teaching, no one is going to think she's the same person that died on the Challenger. The pretend landing on a runway like a glider... with a rocket... ever ask how does a rocket glide? It doesn't, period. Hell, jets don't even glide, they need their engines on to make a landing. And funny enough, go listen to the landings again of those vehicles, every time, you will hear the jet engines, so what is landing? A jet made up to look like the space craft.

It is all lies. Nothing comes back from orbit. The only thing sent into space is probes, not humans. You know why Russia never said boo about the faked Apollo missions to the moon? Because, Russia was doing the same thing, is still doing the same thing, all manned space flight is a lie. Cry me a river over your lost heroes. I can tell you, my best friend in college definitely believes his dad spent 84 days in space commanding skylab 4, I definitely believed it too, back when his dad was my landlord also. Now I look back on those days and laugh. I asked Gerry what impressed him most about space? He said, "the stars" ... stars he supposedly saw in low earth orbit. funny answer that.
 
Last edited:

Days

Commentator
You will die just as stupid as you lived
you will get banned for your trolling long before I die.

By the way, what you are doing is called stalking. Trolling is different, trolling is when you run chubb behind your boat; IOW, try to get replies with some kind of bait, trolling is not near as bad as stalking. Stalking is when you follow someone around and post at the poster, instead of content. Stalking is why rules of the road were written, stalking destroys a forum. You are already a notorious stalker in this forum.

So, BD, how long until this stalker gets perma-banned? It is him or the forum... you can't have both.
 

Days

Commentator
this is interesting. India put up a probe to take visible light photos of Mars. check this out....

What did India’s Mars Orbiter Mission see over Mars? MOM Mangalyaan ISRO
1,254,296 views
•Aug 24, 2019
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen

Days

Commentator
this is interesting. India put up a probe to take visible light photos of Mars. check this out....

What did India’s Mars Orbiter Mission see over Mars? MOM Mangalyaan ISRO
1,254,296 views
•Aug 24, 2019
Okay, here's an engineering video on the project to snoop around the moon Titan. This gives you an idea how capable we are in space...

NASA's Dragonfly Mission to Titan
1,950,780 views
•Aug 3, 2019

Okay, I happened to see a pic in the news this past week, wish I grabbed it, but didn't. It was a picture of lunar dust, and the lunar surface, nothing else. But, once again, NASA was claiming it showed a left-over lunar rover from the Apollo mission. Remember, the 2010 LRO mission was supposed to snap pictures of the Apollo sites and prove the equipment was up there... but never gave us anything more than pics of dust and would point at a speck of light in the dust and claim it something. This time, ten years later, they did it again, and by this point the LRO has mapped the entire moon many times over.

So, this I mention because the article finally admitted that the LRO has high spec cameras... of course it does, it is a mapping mission, all it does is take pics.

Try this, go to Google maps and zoom down as far as you can without going to street view... see that picture? I can almost read the license plate on my car parked in front of our condo. So, here, think, what is taking that picture? Satellites at about 250 miles up that were put up in the 80' and 90's. And earth has atmosphere to fight through.

Now, think of the LRO on the moon. 2010 cameras for a mapping mission. The LRO started at 200 miles high and has slowly descended over the years until this latest pic of a rover (cough* speck of sand) was taken from 50 miles up. No atmosphere. We should easily be able to read the miniature license plate they put on the rover - and we would easily read it, if it were only there to read.

The Hubbell telescope took pics of the Apollo mission sites... there's nothing there, people. How long will it take to understand that a picture of lunar dust is not a picture of a rover? We can probes to other planets and their moons but we can't snap a pic of our own moon? Oh wait, we have those pics, but you have to be told that you are looking at a rover, because all you see is lunar dust. Here's the funny part; at 50 miles up, the LRO is actually focusing in on the lunar dust, that is genuinely a speck of sand they are pointing to, the LRO can do that easily.
 

Days

Commentator
Okay, here's an engineering video on the project to snoop around the moon Titan. This gives you an idea how capable we are in space...

NASA's Dragonfly Mission to Titan
1,950,780 views
•Aug 3, 2019

Okay, I happened to see a pic in the news this past week, wish I grabbed it, but didn't. It was a picture of lunar dust, and the lunar surface, nothing else. But, once again, NASA was claiming it showed a left-over lunar rover from the Apollo mission. Remember, the 2010 LRO mission was supposed to snap pictures of the Apollo sites and prove the equipment was up there... but never gave us anything more than pics of dust and would point at a speck of light in the dust and claim it something. This time, ten years later, they did it again, and by this point the LRO has mapped the entire moon many times over.

So, this I mention because the article finally admitted that the LRO has High spec cameras... of course it does, it is a mapping mission, all it does is take pics.

Try this, go to Google maps and zoom down as far as you can without going to street view... see that picture? I can almost read the license plate on my car parked in front of our condo. So, here, think, what is taking that picture? Satellites at about 250 miles up that were put up in the 80' and 90's. And earth has atmosphere to fight through.

Now, think of the LRO on the moon. 2010 cameras for a mapping mission. The LRO started at 200 miles High and has slowly descended over the years until this latest pic of a rover (cough* speck of sand) was taken from 50 miles up. No atmosphere. We should easily be able to read the miniature license plate they put on the rover - and we would easily read it, if it were only there to read.

The Hubbell telescope took pics of the Apollo mission sites... there's nothing there, people. How long will it take to understand that a picture of lunar dust is not a picture of a rover? We can probes to other planets and their moons but we can't snap a pic of our own moon? Oh wait, we have those pics, but you have to be told that you are looking at a rover, because all you see is lunar dust. Here's the funny part; at 50 miles up, the LRO is actually focusing in on the lunar dust, that is genuinely a speck of sand they are pointing to, the LRO can do that easily.
You know we whip these posts off, and we rarely go back and finish the thought or clarify a sentence.

So, to expand a bit on the point about being able to see the individual specks of space dust on the moon. What I was trying to say was this; we are looking at actual specks of space dust and being told it is a rover. You know this because they zoomed in on tracks and claimed they were footprints. Those tracks were made by rocks moving over the centuries, we already knew about that. And they never snapped an actual boot print and there should have been a gazillion of those.

But the central idea to this post is this; NASA sent up high spec cameras, but then pulled their usual lies and claimed they didn't send cameras that could focus in on the surface, to explain away all those pics of space dust and no Apollo equipment, only to turn around ten years later and knock off pics of tracks in the sand and try to pawn them off as footprints. But here they are caught in their own lies, because now they are admitting that they had the ability to focus in on the surface all along and now they are admitting that these are indeed zoomed-in pics of the lunar surface.

Occam's razor:
if it looks exactly like a zoomed in shot of the lunar surface and it came from a mapping mission that stated it was part of their mission to do that, and if the technology was easily there to do it...
just wait ten years and NASA will admit that it is indeed a zoomed in shot of the lunar surface.

Is there anyone left that is still dying stupid?
By now, it is a common joke, believing they really went to the moon.
sorry about the paradigm shift, it shook me up also. The commander of Skylab 4 was my collegiate best friend's dad, and actually my landlord for a while. I was a guest at his apartment more than once, you can imagine what all that was filled with. And I asked him, "what was the most amazing thing in space?" And he answered me, "the stars"... if the stars are the most amazing thing that he remembered from low orbit, how could the first mission to the moon return and not remember seeing a star at all? Sure they changed their story afterwards, but why would you need to change your story, if you didn't lie to begin with? How was it possible for them to go all the way to the moon and not come back utterly amazed by the stars? They were at lunar morning, had they actually stood on the moon, the sun was on the horizon, hence the long shadows in the fake pics. So, if they had really stood on the moon, the entire sky above them - jesus practically anywhere they looked - was vacuum filled stars. What I mean by that is this... there is no atmosphere to diffuse the sunlight like we have on earth, the moon has no sky, it is a straight view to the stars. Ever see a pic of the milky way taken at night in a place with no light? That's nothing compared to what the "astronauts" should have seen. It is our atmosphere that blocks our view of the stars. Forget about all those cropped pics and terrible early photo shopped pics or studio high glossy high quality pics not possible with the equipment the "astronauts" had... think about that first mission returning and the first men to step on the moon didn't see any stars. You know why they told that lie? They were told to tell it... to cover up for the cropped pics that had no stars in them....

1638906749887.png

.... as if you couldn't see the Milky Way galaxy from the moon, only from earth. Because you know, they only looked directly at the sun on the horizon the whole time they were there. Plus, there is all that glare from the earth's surface. And what exactly is "glare"? Well, that's, well, you know, that when light reflects off the surface. I see and what is the light reflecting into? Well, it's a phenomenon that happens with human sight and light. Yeah and how does it happen? Oh well, the light bounces off the surface and dissipates into the atmosphere and that creates glare. Yeah, I get it... but does that happen on the moon? Sure, just look at the moon pics. Right. (Light doesn't wrap around a shadow and back-light an object in a vacuum. There is no glare in a vacuum. You need an atmosphere to get those effects)

I just want you to know that if you cling to the moon hoax to your death, you didn't just die stupid, you died a total idiot. NASA lied their asses off about everything. How about bake - n - shake? They cooled the space capsule by half spinning it? really? How does that cool anything? (it doesn't) They went in and out of the lunar vehicle, into a total vacuum, without space locks, and still managed to fully pressurize the LEM so that they could sleep without their spacesuits on. There wasn't enough room in those capsules to bring enough breathing air, let alone do that. But people, my God, just ask yourself, how do you fully pressurize a lunar vehicle in a total vacuum when it has UN-reinforced aluminum foil for walls? 32 pounds per square inch is a lot of pressure in a vacuum. And why didn't it escape through the hatch? The lunar vehicle had no space locks, and you are still sitting there thinking that they lived in that on the moon for two weeks. Where did they go to bathroom? you can't take a crap in a total vacuum, your [Unwelcome language removed] will explode. So we are told that they wore a diaper and pissed and shit themselves for two full weeks. Sure they did. Obviously they would have changed when they took the space suits off at night, right? Wouldn't you? Would you put that diaper back on in the morning chock full of shit from ten days? No one does that, anyone would at least clean the diaper out of shit before wearing it again. But it was just another one of those things NASA didn't think of when they told their stories... so there it is, they had no change of diaper and they didn't even clean those diapers, that's the official story. Nobody stopped and realized what it meant when the astronauts had been there for 10, 11, 12, 13, and onto the 14th day. I will tell what it meant had it really happened; it meant shit was squeezing out of those diapers into the suit and by day 12 those suits were filled with more piss and shit then they were oxygen. But sorry, the astronauts never bothered to clean themselves or dispose of their waste on the moon; why would they have to? Look at the pics and videos, they were spotless, they didn't have any problem. Out of sight, out of mind. push the images and don't answer the questions. Eventually, everyone sees through your lies and you dispose of all the evidence, lose everything... oops where did we put all our footage from all the moon trips? dunno, does anyone care?

... not really... it was such ridiculous lies.
 
Last edited:

God of War

Lets go Brandon!
You know we whip these posts off, and we rarely go back and finish the thought or clarify a sentence.

So, to expand a bit on the point about being able to see the individual specks of space dust on the moon. What I was trying to say was this; we are looking at actual specks of space dust and being told it is a rover. You know this because they zoomed in on tracks and claimed they were footprints. Those tracks were made by rocks moving over the centuries, we already knew about that. And they never snapped an actual boot print and there should have been a gazillion of those.

But the central idea to this post is this; NASA sent up High spec cameras, but then pulled their usual lies and claimed they didn't send cameras that could focus in on the surface, to explain away all those pics of space dust and no Apollo equipment, only to turn around ten years later and knock off pics of tracks in the sand and try to pawn them off as footprints. But here they are caught in their own lies, because now they are admitting that they had the ability to focus in on the surface all along and now they are admitting that these are indeed zoomed-in pics of the lunar surface.

Occam's razor:
if it looks exactly like a zoomed in shot of the lunar surface and it came from a mapping mission that stated it was part of their mission to do that, and if the technology was easily there to do it...
just wait ten years and NASA will admit that it is indeed a zoomed in shot of the lunar surface.

Is there anyone left that is still dying stupid?
By now, it is a common joke, believing they really went to the moon.
sorry about the paradigm shift, it shook me up also. The commander of Skylab 4 was my collegiate best friend's dad, and actually my landlord for a while. I was a guest at his apartment more than once, you can imagine what all that was filled with. And I asked him, "what was the most amazing thing in space?" And he answered me, "the stars"... if the stars are the most amazing thing that he remembered from low orbit, how could the first mission to the moon return and not remember seeing a star at all? Sure they changed their story afterwards, but why would you need to change your story, if you didn't lie to begin with? How was it possible for them to go all the way to the moon and not come back utterly amazed by the stars? They were at lunar morning, had they actually stood on the moon, the sun was on the horizon, hence the long shadows in the fake pics. So, if they had really stood on the moon, the entire sky above them - jesus practically anywhere they looked - was vacuum filled stars. What I mean by that is this... there is no atmosphere to diffuse the sunlight like we have on earth, the moon has no sky, it is a straight view to the stars. Ever see a pic of the milky way taken at night in a place with no light? That's nothing compared to what the "astronauts" should have seen. It is our atmosphere that blocks our view of the stars. Forget about all those cropped pics and terrible early photo shopped pics or studio High glossy High quality pics not possible with the equipment the "astronauts" had... think about that first mission returning and the first men to step on the moon didn't see any stars. You know why they told that lie? They were told to tell it... to cover up for the cropped pics that had no stars in them....

View attachment 67376

.... as if you couldn't see the Milky Way galaxy from the moon, only from earth. Because you know, they only looked directly at the sun on the horizon the whole time they were there. Plus, there is all that glare from the earth's surface. And what exactly is "glare"? Well, that's, well, you know, that when light reflects off the surface. I see and what is the light reflecting into? Well, it's a phenomenon that happens with human sight and light. Yeah and how does it happen? Oh well, the light bounces off the surface and dissipates into the atmosphere and that creates glare. Yeah, I get it... but does that happen on the moon? Sure, just look at the moon pics. Right. (Light doesn't wrap around a shadow and back-light an object in a vacuum. There is no glare in a vacuum. You need an atmosphere to get those effects)

I just want you to know that if you cling to the moon hoax to your death, you didn't just die stupid, you died a total idiot. NASA lied their asses off about everything. How about bake - n - shake? They cooled the space capsule by half spinning it? really? How does that cool anything? (it doesn't) They went in and out of the lunar vehicle, into a total vacuum, without space locks, and still managed to fully pressurize the LEM so that they could sleep without their spacesuits on. There wasn't enough room in those capsules to bring enough breathing air, let alone do that. But people, my God, just ask yourself, how do you fully pressurize a lunar vehicle in a total vacuum when it has UN-reinforced aluminum foil for walls? 32 pounds per square inch is a lot of pressure in a vacuum. And why didn't it escape through the hatch? The lunar vehicle had no space locks, and you are still sitting there thinking that they lived in that on the moon for two weeks. Where did they go to bathroom? you can't take a crap in a total vacuum, your [Unwelcome language removed] will explode. So we are told that they wore a diaper and pissed and shit themselves for two full weeks. Sure they did. Obviously they would have changed when they took the space suits off at night, right? Wouldn't you? Would you put that diaper back on in the morning chock full of shit from ten days? No one does that, anyone would at least clean the diaper out of shit before wearing it again. But it was just another one of those things NASA didn't think of when they told their stories... so there it is, they had no change of diaper and they didn't even clean those diapers, that's the official story. Nobody stopped and realized what it meant when the astronauts had been there for 10, 11, 12, 13, and onto the 14th day. I will tell what it meant had it really happened; it meant shit was squeezing out of those diapers into the suit and by day 12 those suits were filled with more piss and shit then they were oxygen. But sorry, the astronauts never bothered to clean themselves or dispose of their waste on the moon; why would they have to? Look at the pics and videos, they were spotless, they didn't have any problem. Out of sight, out of mind. push the images and don't answer the questions. Eventually, everyone sees through your lies and you dispose of all the evidence, lose everything... oops where did we put all our footage from all the moon trips? dunno, does anyone care?

... not really... it was such ridiculous lies.
People left Africa and in a long arc landed on Australia and New Zealand as primitives on rafts and canoes with outriggers. They made it to Hawaii. I think early modern man very well could have landed on the moon and come back as I see the same difficulty and danger in those two things relative to the available technology. No actual reason to think otherwise than to arrive at the moon and find no sign of prior human visit having left vehicles and other structures on the surface.
 

Days

Commentator
People left Africa and in a long arc landed on Australia and New Zealand as primitives on rafts and canoes with outriggers. They made it to Hawaii. I think early modern man very well could have landed on the moon and come back as I see the same difficulty and danger in those two things relative to the available technology. No actual reason to think otherwise than to arrive at the moon and find no sign of prior human visit having left vehicles and other structures on the surface.
Actually, long boats with outriggers are well suited for crossing the ocean. An aluminum capsule OTOH, melts at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. So if you are pulling Mach 40, hitting our atmosphere at 25,000 mph, and you are made of solid rock, what are your chances of getting to the surface before the heat and pressure incinerates you into nothing? (Most meteorites are consumed by the atmosphere)
Now try to pull that off inside a pressurized aluminum space capsule.
The first human to go beyond our atmosphere and return, did by flying nice and slow.
 

Days

Commentator
Actually, long boats with outriggers are well suited for crossing the ocean. An aluminum capsule OTOH, melts at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. So if you are pulling Mach 40, hitting our atmosphere at 25,000 mph, and you are made of solid rock, what are your chances of getting to the surface before the heat and pressure incinerates you into nothing? (Most meteorites are consumed by the atmosphere)
Now try to pull that off inside a pressurized aluminum space capsule.
The first human to go beyond our atmosphere and return, did by flying nice and slow.
There are so many laughable insanely impossible aspects to the Apollo's program claim of landing on the moon, it never ends. How about the speed factor? They claimed to be flying at 25,000 mph. (Not really flying, but traveling) ... and it took them 3 days to get to the moon and 3 days to return. But they took a straight trajectory. The moon is only 250,000 miles away. Do the math. It should have only taken ten hours.

But it took them 72 hours. They spent 72 hours traveling at 25,000 mph. Low earth orbit is achieved at 17,000 mph so it only took a few minutes to get up to speed, which they supposedly needed in order to escape earth's gravity... never mind they blasted off at less than 1000 mph. So do the math. 70 hours at 25,000 miles per hour, I can do that in my head, they flew 1,750,000 miles... to reach a moon that is only 250,000 miles away. Any problem with that? They never slowed down.

How did the command capsule slow down when it reached the earth's atmosphere? Ready? the atmosphere stopped it. The capsule only had thrusters on the sides, remember what they fished out of the ocean? No rocket underneath the capsule, just tiles. That's a pretty neat trick, having the atmosphere slow your craft from 25,000 miles per hour to a couple hundred miles per hour or whatever was slow enough to not snap the parachute lines. Most meteorites burn up before they hit the earth, but the ones that survive the blast furnace temps in the atmosphere, tend to hit the earth real hard and fast... the atmosphere doesn't slow them down very much. Ever heard of impact craters?

How hot does it get inside that tiny space craft when outside the craft there's a 4500 degree Fahrenheit fireball? An all metal skin would pass on all that heat instantly. First of all, it would never get that hot because Aluminum melts at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. If you really are stupid enough to ride an aluminum can into the atmosphere at 25,000 miles per hour, it will take about 30 seconds for the capsule to explode, maybe only 10 seconds, who knows, it has never been done. But if you want to believe they did it, how hot did it get inside that aluminum oven? 3000 degrees? 2000 degrees at least, right? It doesn't matter because not a single meteor has ever been stopped by the atmosphere, if the rock is as big as the Apolo capsule was, it explodes, even though it is solid rock, if it doesn't explode, it hits the earth in excess of 20,000 miles per hour.

so, yeah, they traveled one and three quarter million miles to arrive at a moon that is only a quarter million miles away. Every mission did that. It isn't linear algebra, AKA rocket science, it is 5th grade math, people. In other words they flew 7 times farther than the moon to get to the moon. And no one has ever asked NASA why the Apollo missions apparently over flew the moon by 3/4 million miles every time, or how they turned around at that point. Not that NASA would ever answer.

You can do this all day and night. there is literally hundreds of proofs that mankind did not fly to the moon in the 60's. We tried to do it by 2020, but cancelled... no way to survive the radiation. So we were told. Yeah, radiation is another problem child, so is hitting the ocean at 20,000 miles per hour.
 

Days

Commentator
I just came across this thread and have to admit incredulity. Thankfully for Days, he never met Buzz Aldrin.
Hey Woolley,
Buzz Aldrin went on to become the commander of Skylab3. I never met him but I did know the commander of Skylab4. Gerald Carr. Led. the first and only revolt in space. 12 solid weeks in space would make any one crazy, dontchathink?
His son, Jeff Carr was a track scholarship athlete at Indiana University. Jeff ran the 100 yard dash in 9.4 seconds at his city meet in high school and still took 2nd place. The kid he was chasing tied the world record mark (9.0). We used to end every day at IU smoking Hawaiian and watching McHale's Navy. Jeff transfered to UTexas in Austin and I ran away from my wrestling scholarship and stayed with him the winter of 78-79. Gerry Carr was my landlord. I partied New Years Eve at Gerry's apartment and drank his bottle of. Rummy from Trinidad and Tobago. Smooth as silk but kicked like a mule the next morning. Jeff and I went out and played football with the neighborhood boys and learned that we were too old for that fun. Galveston, TX. His home town.
I went home and worked for my dad. Summer of 79, my brother's room mate at Western Michigan came by and grabbed me for a freestyle tournament. Ron and I were winning our weight classes when Ron had his shoulder dislocated in a match. I took Ron to a hospital... then returned and won the tournament, which was a regional qualifier for the 80 Olympic team. I never went to the nationals but that team didn't go to Moscow games anyway. 6 years later Ron made the team and took a silver in the PanAm games. I never wrestled again after the qualifier. You know I skied every black diamond in the Rockies and then quit skiing when I was 19 also. I ran away from everything when I was 19. I quit celebrating holidays, birthdays, and stopped watching television. I stepped into the spirit world and and one day found myself sitting in front of a God I never believed in. I asked one question, "which faith do you want me to serve you with?" He said, "run after the old Jesus story"... 42 years later I am still chasing it. It's the only crazy myth I believe in.
Do I think Jeff's dad really flew 84 days in low earth orbit? Doubt it. But at least it wasn't one of those moon hoax trips in the sixties.
 
Top