Did Men Really Walk On The Moon?

[JacksBratt]

Still no response from @JacksBratt

For what?

 

[d taylor]

-​

Faked Apollo Atmosphere Re-entry from Space?
Faked Apollo Atmosphere Re-entry from Space | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

 

[prodromos]

For what?

You haven't shown any attempt at the math.
It also was not a single 'puff' but a constant thrust over significant duration. Different fuel, no atmosphere, so it didn't leave an exhaust trail like the Saturn V boosters did.

I posted this response to you back in February 2022

Different rocket fuel (hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, with dinitrogen tetroxide as the oxidiser), lack of atmosphere, only had to lift the ascent module of the lander and only carrying enough fuel to get into lunar orbit. A little under 5 tonnes. The reaction produces nitrogen gas, water vapour and carbon dioxide plus a lot of heat. Like a hydrogen fire the 'flame' is invisible and in the vacuum of space there is no condensation of water vapour into clouds of water droplets. The "little puff" you see is from visible debris being blasted by the thrust of the rocket. Once it moves away from the descent stage the thrust is invisible.​

The Saturn V system had to launch a little over 2,942 tonnes into earth orbit using refined kerosine and liquid oxygen as fuel.​

I notice you didn't respond back then.

Different rocket fuel (hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, with dinitrogen tetroxide as the oxidiser), lack of atmosphere, only had to lift the ascent module of the lander and only carrying enough fuel to get into lunar orbit. A little under 5 tonnes. The reaction produces nitrogen gas, water vapour and carbon dioxide plus a lot of heat. Like a hydrogen fire the 'flame' is invisible and in the vacuum of space there is no condensation of water vapour into clouds of water droplets. The "little puff" you see is from visible debris being blasted by the thrust of the rocket. Once it moves away from the descent stage the thrust is invisible.
The Saturn V system had to launch a little over 2,942 tonnes into earth orbit using refined kerosine and liquid oxygen as fuel. If you are unable to comprehend the massive differences between these two cases then I have a bridge here in Sydney you might be interested in buying.

 

[Bradskii]

-​

Faked Apollo Atmosphere Re-entry from Space?
Faked Apollo Atmosphere Re-entry from Space | AULIS Online – Different Thinking

​

From the link:

The authors consider that there are far too many incredible coincidences in this article. What amazing luck for the Apollo program when, descending from space, the very first aircraft they come across was piloted by a man who just happened to be a space expert, totally familiar with the re-entry sequence of events. The pilot of the aircraft, Capt. Frank A. Brown, was a truly exceptional person. Not only did he know the time of the re-entry, but he also knew the coordinates of the entry – able to calculate the location of his aircraft relative to the capsule, and all of this within a few seconds accuracy!

And from the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/onboard-the-qantas-flight-which-was-out-of-this-world/

When Qantas flight QF596 from Brisbane to San Francisco took to the skies on 24 July 1969, it was running two hours late. On purpose.
As the Boeing 707 cruised high above the Pacific Ocean, Captain Frank Brown was scanning the starry sky around him.

For weeks, Captain Brown had checked and double checked the flight path of the service so he and his passengers could be part of history.
He and everyone else onboard the aircraft would be the first to witness the return of Apollo 11 after the first ever moon landing.

The 707 would fly about 450 kilometres parallel to the Apollo’s re-entry path, giving everyone onboard a front row seat to watch the spacecraft enter the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

[JacksBratt]

Oh, you want math to show that there would need to be a larger rocket to get off the moon?

I'm not even going to entertain that nonsensical request.

If you cannot see the enormity of the rocket used to get off the earth.. and the pathetically insignificant puff of energy that supposedly launched the lunar lander off of a sphere that was only 1/6 the gravity... (not 1/1000, not 1/500, not 1/100 ) but 1/6 of the gravity...Then I cannot even have a conversation with you in that regard.

That little capsule may not of only gone 100 feet.. it may very well went 1000's of feet up.. but.. it would have surely came back down..

And.. whoever was controlling the camera that panned up as that craft, supposedly, left the moon... could have turned the lens to that event and we could have watched as it plummeted and made a little splash of moon dust as well as a new crater.

 

[Yttrium]

If you cannot see the enormity of the rocket used to get off the earth.. and the pathetically insignificant puff of energy that supposedly launched the lunar lander off of a sphere that was only 1/6 the gravity... (not 1/1000, not 1/500, not 1/100 ) but 1/6 of the gravity...Then I cannot even have a conversation with you in that regard.

The difference is not just 1/6 of the gravity. You're completely ignoring the fact that the lunar lander is a tiny fraction of the size of the Saturn V. Yes, if the Saturn V was lifting off the Moon with 1/6 of the gravity, we would expect to see a much larger puff.

 

[Lost4words]

Non moon landings, flat earth, moon has its own light. Same people believe in same fiction stories!

 

[JacksBratt]

The difference is not just 1/6 of the gravity. You're completely ignoring the fact that the lunar lander is a tiny fraction of the size of the Saturn V. Yes, if the Saturn V was lifting off the Moon with 1/6 of the gravity, we would expect to see a much larger puff.

Again... the Satrun V was mostly fuel.. supposedly needed to get off the earth. The payload was the orbiter and the lunar lander.. and three men.

That's it.. That's all that had to go...

Even if you take away one man... who remained in the orbiter... and the orbiter itself.. and the legs of the lunar lander... You still have two men and the lunar lander portion that goes back into orbit.... you would need a lot of fuel which in itself needs fuel to lift.. which is why the Saturn V was so huge..

The little puff or flash when the lunar lander left the moon.... insignificant.

 

[d taylor]

Oh, you want math to show that there would need to be a larger rocket to get off the moon?

I'm not even going to entertain that nonsensical request.

If you cannot see the enormity of the rocket used to get off the earth.. and the pathetically insignificant puff of energy that supposedly launched the lunar lander off of a sphere that was only 1/6 the gravity... (not 1/1000, not 1/500, not 1/100 ) but 1/6 of the gravity...Then I cannot even have a conversation with you in that regard.

That little capsule may not of only gone 100 feet.. it may very well went 1000's of feet up.. but.. it would have surely came back down..

And.. whoever was controlling the camera that panned up as that craft, supposedly, left the moon... could have turned the lens to that event and we could have watched as it plummeted and made a little splash of moon dust as well as a new crater.

Isn't amazing they could even operate a camera from Houston, Tx 300.000 miles away.

 

[Yttrium]

Again... the Satrun V was mostly fuel.. supposedly needed to get off the earth. The payload was the orbiter and the lunar lander.. and three men.

That's it.. That's all that had to go...

Even if you take away one man... who remained in the orbiter... and the orbiter itself.. and the legs of the lunar lander... You still have two men and the lunar lander portion that goes back into orbit.... you would need a lot of fuel which in itself needs fuel to lift.. which is why the Saturn V was so huge..

The little puff or flash when the lunar lander left the moon.... insignificant.

Well, that's a little better. Not much better. But just don't forget the size difference next time. It makes your argument logically wrong rather than merely lacking in science.

 

[prodromos]

Oh, you want math to show that there would need to be a larger rocket to get off the moon?

I'm not even going to entertain that nonsensical request.

If you are going to be dismissive, you need to be able to demonstrate why with more than just your opinion.

If you cannot see the enormity of the rocket used to get off the earth.. and the pathetically insignificant puff of energy that supposedly launched the lunar lander off of a sphere that was only 1/6 the gravity... (not 1/1000, not 1/500, not 1/100 ) but 1/6 of the gravity...Then I cannot even have a conversation with you in that regard.

2,942 tonnes including fuel versus a little under 5 tonnes including fuel at 1/6 the gravity. The launch burn from the lunar surface lasted from 7 to 7.5 minutes with the engine producing 3,500 pounds-force of thrust. It wasn't an insignificant 'puff'.

 

[Bradskii]

The little puff or flash when the lunar lander left the moon.... insignificant.

As you've been told, it burned for a few minutes. Can you tell us what you expected to see as opposed to what you thought you did?

 

[JacksBratt]

Non moon landings, flat earth, moon has its own light. Same people believe in same fiction stories!

Hi "Lost".

Are you enjoying your summer?

 

[JacksBratt]

Isn't amazing they could even operate a camera from Houston, Tx 300.000 miles away.

Isn't it though? Beautifully kept that Lunar modual in center frame too.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, that's a little better. Not much better. But just don't forget the size difference next time. It makes your argument logically wrong rather than merely lacking in science.

Well, thank you.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you are going to be dismissive, you need to be able to demonstrate why with more than just your opinion.

Can you show the math that details why the Saturn V needed to be that large? Or the math that details why the lunar blast only required one small flash or burst to get all the way to the orbiter

From what I have researched, the Apollo orbiter was around 110 km up...

You want me to believe that the little tiny explosion could move that lunar module 110 km? Even horizontally on a track.. the explosion needed to move two men and that capsule a distance of 110 km in one blast... would be probably kill them inside.

Then.... add to that.. .that it has to life against a gravity that is only 1/6 that of the earth...

IMO... it's mission impossible.

2,942 tonnes including fuel versus a little under 5 tonnes including fuel at 1/6 the gravity. The launch burn from the lunar surface lasted from 7 to 7.5 minutes with the engine producing 3,500 pounds-force of thrust. It wasn't an insignificant 'puff'.

Just where, inside that tiny capsule, was the fuel to burn for 7 to 7.5 minutes... How much did it weigh?

It's a fraud...

 

[JacksBratt]

As you've been told, it burned for a few minutes. Can you tell us what you expected to see as opposed to what you thought you did?

I would expect a rocket with sufficient size to propel two men, the fuel itself, and a metal vehicle that would weigh a bit more than a car..... the 110 km distance to the command module, against a force of gravity 1/6 of that of the earth... without falling back to the moon

Not to mention that, given the length of the craft.. and that it was almost square in length and width... there was nothing to keep it from spinning like a top and bouncing and rolling for meters on the moon surface.

It's much easier to just lift it off of the stage in the studio with cables to the ceiling.

I have built and blasted many model rockets in my day. If you don't have adequate fins or vanes, don't have the proper center of gravity in relation to the thrust.... and the length is not sufficient... the direction of flight... is not predictable. Many of my home designs sent all of us ducking for cover.

If you put a thruster on a ball... that thing would spin like a top. The men inside would have been centrifuged into pudding.

The whole idea is science fiction that only takes a bit of critical thinking to debunk.

 

[Lost4words]

Hi "Lost".

Are you enjoying your summer?

Hi 'Bratt'.....you enjoying yours?

 

[prodromos]

Just where, inside that tiny capsule, was the fuel to burn for 7 to 7.5 minutes... How much did it weigh?

• APS propellant mass: 5,187 lb (2,353 kg) stored in two 36-cubic-foot (1.02 m3) propellant tanks

 

[Yttrium]

If you put a thruster on a ball... that thing would spin like a top. The men inside would have been centrifuged into pudding.

Note the RCS thrusters in podromos' picture. RCS = Reaction Control System. The RCS thrusters are pointed in different directions to provide attitude control so the vessel doesn't spin like a top.