Pegasus Research Consortium

John Lear's Question and Answers => John Lear's Question and Answer Area => Apollo Reality - Did They go to the Moon? => Topic started by: Jusdewit8 on October 13, 2014, 08:19:01 am

Title: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on October 13, 2014, 08:19:01 am
...or satisfactorily explain, IMO: America's  Elite Status and Sole Bragging Rights
Jus for grins, let's pretend we really had men walking on the moon.  What on Earth made USA so supreme, so untouchable, so perfectly unique that no other country, nation or people has duplicated our "incredible feat"?
We're supposed to believe Japan, China, Russia etc. were all just so proud of America's accomplishments they have forever since been willing to vicariously study the moon via USA hero's travels?  PPPFFFFT!

No one else has been to the moon because no one has been to the moon, period. 

Kennedy challenged us to win the race to the moon:
Quote

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

John F. Kennedy,
Speech at Rice University, Houston, September 12, 1962

The "powers that be" and "a few good men" decided they'd be damned if we were going to lose the race and disappoint our beloved President, and then by hook or by crook they did what they had to do to keep from losing face.  Even if that meant lying through their teeth to do it.  Pride could not allow them to do anything less, no matter the consequences. 

If neither Buzz Aldrin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k nor Neil Armstrong  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cfBFwE9VmY had it in them to swear on the Bible they had walked on the moon, why on Earth should we believe they did? 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sinny on October 13, 2014, 09:29:04 am
What exactly are we supposed to be disproving?

And a more appropriate scenario would be that the other nations have not publicly gone to the moon, because someone else is occupying it.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on October 13, 2014, 09:50:33 am
It's always interesting to hear the varieties of ways people disbelieve something that didn't simply happen once, but happened so many times that it became boring and didn't even rate full news coverage on each of them, toward the end. Putting aside that Russia was watching our missions as close or closer than NASA itself was, and would have needed to be in full cooperation for their own humiliation in losing the "race"? There is another factor my Father was always quick to note as a product of the 60's and Vietnam.

Given the state of technology then, and how primitive it was by comparison? (He didn't even have hydraulics on his ship's gun mounts..and I recall how long it took him to get the meaning of that across to a young mind once. It's hard for us to imagine) It is literally true to say it would have required MORE work and innovation to fake it convincingly and well enough to stand without contradictory proof 40+ years later than it did to actually do it. Sure...doing it for real, really got some people killed and it wouldn't have if it had all been sound stage fantasy. Faking it would have risked a Government and the future of a nation, had it gone even a bit wrong.

After all, a good % of the adults in THAT time period had PERSONALLY fought in World War II, Korea or both. They weren't modern couch potatoes.

There is another question I've had since building out a whole section on the Apollo/Mercury programs for a web site once? The Saturn V Rockets were true wonders of the age. The shook the very Earth they departed from and could be FELT by people from far away, let alone heard and seen.

If no one ever left NEO? Where did the dozen plus missions go after half of Florida saw them launch, and a whole Aircraft Carrier saw them picked up, thousands of miles away and in the middle of the open ocean?

There are a few more factors of common sense to debunk here, I'm thinking.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sinny on October 13, 2014, 09:56:10 am
I believe Kennedy made that promise because he had discovered we had all ready been to the moon, and as it is an historical leap, he couldn't allow the public to be kept in the dark.

I do not believe we travelled there by the means stated to us.

And I believe the moon ventures have gone quite since Apollo 17 due to non-public disputes and stand off's.

Someone's up there, I'd bet my life on it.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Glaucon on October 13, 2014, 12:09:48 pm
     We were in an Arms Race during a post scientific enlightenment. Imagine if Nazi-Germany was able to under take V1/V2 development in a non-war environment and subsequently developed the capacity to truly capitalize on the industrialization of advanced research and development? I won't entertain the common 'what if' specifics and the impacts that industry would have had on deterrence prior to Soviet/Allies engagement. Let alone the tactical combat capacity that a sustainable industry could nourish, under Nazi control.
I'm trying to keep it simple here...

     But those are more or less the reverberations that echoed consistently and progressively throughout leaders and their cabinets who, unfortunately, were often scientifically illiterate and incapable. The most protected 'State secrets' were simply the fruits of scientists in both the Soviet Union and the United States. Capability wasn't intelligence, it was counter intelligence, the proprietary knowledge was the intelligence and it was stubbornly assumed that there was an end-game in Military oriented scientific research.


 :D Problem is, Science is progressive and it's institution is public.
The Apollo program, in my opinion, was an indirect reactionary response to this 'troubling' truth about the breadth of scientific feasibility. The Apollo program had both the intention to make the USSR a 'loser', but far more importantly, demonstrated that the United States is capable of utilizing cutting edge science in programs/operations of a magnitude in scale that the USSR could not possibly dream of.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Glaucon on October 13, 2014, 12:12:09 pm
American 'Elitism' is a misrepresentation.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 01, 2014, 02:51:26 am
Sinny-I should have said one thing no one can explain.  Disprove was the wrong word to use for my statement. 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Pimander on November 01, 2014, 05:54:12 am
[youtube]XtW72nT7cYQ[/youtube]

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 01, 2014, 06:13:09 am
Ohhhhh....I do so wish I could figure out how to post pics and videos.  Love the one you added!  Found a couple more things just last night I'd really like to share, but despite searching, haven't figured out how to do that yet...*sigh* (technologically impaired) lol
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 01, 2014, 06:48:53 am
It's always interesting to hear the varieties of ways people disbelieve something that didn't simply happen once, but happened so many times that it became boring and didn't even rate full news coverage on each of them, toward the end. Putting aside that Russia was watching our missions as close or closer than NASA itself was, and would have needed to be in full cooperation for their own humiliation in losing the "race"? There is another factor my Father was always quick to note as a product of the 60's and Vietnam.

Given the state of technology then, and how primitive it was by comparison? (He didn't even have hydraulics on his ship's gun mounts..and I recall how long it took him to get the meaning of that across to a young mind once. It's hard for us to imagine) It is literally true to say it would have required MORE work and innovation to fake it convincingly and well enough to stand without contradictory proof 40+ years later than it did to actually do it. Sure...doing it for real, really got some people killed and it wouldn't have if it had all been sound stage fantasy. Faking it would have risked a Government and the future of a nation, had it gone even a bit wrong.

After all, a good % of the adults in THAT time period had PERSONALLY fought in World War II, Korea or both. They weren't modern couch potatoes.

There is another question I've had since building out a whole section on the Apollo/Mercury programs for a web site once? The Saturn V Rockets were true wonders of the age. The shook the very Earth they departed from and could be FELT by people from far away, let alone heard and seen.

If no one ever left NEO? Where did the dozen plus missions go after half of Florida saw them launch, and a whole Aircraft Carrier saw them picked up, thousands of miles away and in the middle of the open ocean?

There are a few more factors of common sense to debunk here, I'm thinking.  ;)

If the Saturn V was a true wonder of the age as you put it. Would you please post the Saturn V construction drawings? I'm not talking about the few (I have them) general arrangement drawings, but the actual constructions drawings?...Are they still classified after 40 years or so?
Not saying they didn't exist or launched but we have all the Apollo/Mercury/Gemini drawings, just not the Saturn V...
Now circling the earth several times, cut to the studio for the landing on the moon and eventually, coming back to Earth and cut to the CBS/NBC/ABC newsfeeds...Ahhh there you have it...

Some of you guys are new here and I'll also include some that have been here for a very long time, try, OH TRY going to www.thelivingmoon.com and do some reading... ::)

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html

Oh and btw,,,the shielding on the Apollo craft were woefully inadequate for going to the moon...Just saying.. ;D

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Pimander on November 01, 2014, 09:01:50 am
Apollo was a PR sham.  They won't engage on the technology because they don't even know how to do it now.

Quote
Not like Apollo

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

Researchers have said that a major radiation event during the any of six Apollo moon landings could have been catastrophic to the astronauts who carried them out. But Apollo crews lived on the moon for days at most, while long-term mission will run much longer.

Radiation from galactic cosmic rays or solar particles, however, would be extremely likely to affect a long-duration stay on the moon, researchers said.
http://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields-radiation-protection-moon-based-astronauts.html

The John quoted above is,  John Lane, an applications scientist with ASRC Aerospace Corp. at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). "We're concerned about charged particle radiation."

Lane doesn't know how Apollo could be so lucky?  I bet he has guessed.  Well I'll tell you how.  They faked it.  It's bleedin' obvious.

I tell you, we have disclosure.  They are practically admitting they could not send men to the Moon with Apollo here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection3/NASA_TP_3079.pdf

Here is Buhler and Lane's practical solution for a Moon base. Don't forget this is from a NASA site. ::)

(http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2005/06/12/24jun_electrostatics_resources/base2_strip.jpg)
Above: Artist’s concept of an electrostatic radiation shield, consisting of positively charged inner spheres and negatively charged outer spheres. The screen net is connected to ground. Image courtesy ASRC Aerospace. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/24jun_electrostatics/

Yes, I've seen the pics with little shiny dots that are supposed to be the Lunar rover etc.  Well we didn't get those pics in the 60s, 70s or 80s did we?  I'll let the reader decide why that is. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: petrus4 on November 01, 2014, 09:48:30 am
American 'Elitism' is a misrepresentation.

No, it really is not.  I know about the Project For The New American Century.  American exceptionalism, elitism, and hubris is the bane of the rest of humanity.

As for the Moon; Apathy might be a serious social problem, but who cares?

a}  I don't believe the landing was a hoax.  I haven't bothered to read too much about the conspiracy theories concerning it, mainly because I reflexively think the whole thing is dumb, to be honest; but those I have seen, have done nothing to persuade me of my hunch regarding it.

b}  We haven't been back for at least two reasons.  The first is that there at least seems to be questionable value in doing so, at least from a resource standpoint; we're essentially talking about a barren, airless piece of rock.  Perhaps Zorgon will correct me with regards to mineable resources, though. 

The second or less mainstream reason, however, is the idea that ETs are already there, and they do not want us there.  David Icke of course thinks the Moon is entirely artificial; something that I disagree with, given its' beneficial roles in Terran ecology.  (The tides, the female menstrual cycle, etc)  I know about Icke's claim that the Earth was supposedly a paradise before the lizard people brought the Moon here, but I'm going to need some sort of evidence for theories of that magnitude.  I'm prepared to believe in a lot of things which most people would consider crankish, but I have my limits.

While I used to be equally apathetic towards space exploration more generally, I've recently come to view it as a social necessity.  This is because the sort of fascist psychopaths who did so well for themselves economically back during the colonial era are still being born, but because there is no new territory for them to conquer, they are in serious danger of destroying the entire planet.  We need to give such people a new focus for their ambitions, and preferably also a place to live which is located an appropriate distance away from the rest of us.

[youtube]ui6g23ygov8[/youtube]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: petrus4 on November 01, 2014, 09:54:19 am
Apollo was a PR sham.  They won't engage on the technology because they don't even know how to do it now.

This is, of course, the other reason why I remain skeptical about space exploration.  Our existing methods are to spacefaring, what placing each of your legs on the side of a hollow log was in maritime terms.  It is embarassingly primitive.

Putting it simply, we don't have the technology to go into space at the current time; and strapping people to what is essentially a giant firecracker is guaranteed to get at least several of them killed.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 01, 2014, 09:57:07 am
It is embarassingly primitive.
But it works. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 01, 2014, 11:55:00 am
Ohhhhh....I do so wish I could figure out how to post pics and videos.

Images   http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=129.msg1198#msg1198

Videos   http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=129.msg57895#msg57895
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 01:47:01 am
Thanks, zorgon!  I hope it works, cuz I don't see it working in my preview...

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/74880633@N05/15688593305/)

Dang!  I followed this exactly:
Here in the post area you will see this image

When you click on that it will place {img}{/img} into your post with the cursor left between. Simply paste the url of the picture and your done

The photo is posted on my flicker account, JusTake2 https://www.flickr.com/photos/74880633@N05/

Maybe the vids will work, it's the ones that sure changed my mind:
[youtube]wptn5RE2I-k[/youtube]
[youtube]0-eazmX6-vc[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4&feature=player_detailpage&list=FLAS8xiywOuYlj5x21Kn11TA#t=1927
The last link is a video which will start right where you get to see the astronauts faking an image of a "far away Earth" but the trickery is revealed at the end of the sham production.  The whole video is worth watching, but this one part really made me question why would they be faking their transmissions???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 02, 2014, 03:26:21 am
I hope it works, cuz I don't see it working in my preview...

It isn't working because the link you used is not an image link but a flicker viewing box. There is no 'share' option for the image url
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 03:57:31 am
Zorgon thanks for your help and patience-I went back and read more about the licensing options, which is I think what you mean by share option?  From what I now gather, I probably need to delete the images I posted on Flickr, seeing as how they do not belong to me.  They are in the public domain, not sure about the current copyright status.  Can you advise?  In the meantime, this is intriguing:
[youtube]hlqvlu_di6A[/youtube]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 02, 2014, 04:23:46 am
I need a link to the original location
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 04:26:24 am
Here is where I found the photo:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/Google_Moon.html
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: easynow on November 02, 2014, 05:07:58 am
That's Apollo 11 image AS11-40-5875
Link - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875HR.jpg

ATS thread with UFO-anomaly found in the Lewis archives version
Link - http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread509370/pg1

Many Apollo images have been Sanitized  ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 06:50:48 am
Sanitized, undoubtedly!  But how did they miss scrubbing up the shadow conflicts seen in Apollo 11 image AS11-40-5875?

Or, for those who have an answer, please explain how in Apollo 11 image AS11-40-5875, Buzz Aldrin's shadow lies directly behind him, yet the flag's shadow is clearly in front of the flag (and even that shadow looks odd, given it is strangely similar to Aldrin's shadow, but Aldrin looks nothing like the flag pole).  Since they claim no other light sources were used, how can it be that shadows fall in opposite directions of two vertical objects in the same photo? And how can a bulky man in a spacesuit cast an almost identical width shadow to that of the flag pole?  Eagerly awaiting a full and educated response!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 02, 2014, 07:05:39 am
When you click on that it will place {img}{/img} into your post with the cursor left between. Simply paste the url of the picture and your done
This image?

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7495/15688593305_1b4a9f0523_o_d.jpg)

It shows the flag's shadow where it's supposed to be, to the right, just behind the astronaut's shadow.

This (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS11/AS11-40-5874.JPG) is a link to a version taken from those famous disappearing TIFFs. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 07:27:33 am
Thanks for posting my NASA pic!

So, you are saying the two dark lines which are behind the astronaut (and which also connect directly WITH the feet of the astronaut), that one of those lines is the shadow from the flag pole?  If so, please explain the odd way the flag pole avoids connecting to it's own shadow, as the astronaut does his! Or to put it a different way, how can there be a shadow-free zone directly to the right of the flag, but no shadow-free zone to the right of the astronaut?  Obviously, there are tiny shadows cast by the differing levels of the surface at the base of the pole, but we aren't talking about those...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 09:37:20 am
I don't know what a TIFF is, and I don't understand how the link provided to "those famous disappearing TIFFs" is any different from the others, except it is faded out and has vertical lines on both sides...can you please clarify?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 02, 2014, 09:55:26 am
Do you know what a jpg is? How about a jpeg? How about a bmp? How about a gif? How about a pdf?

these are all file extensions that identify what type of file it is...try google....

ArMap correctly stated that there is no issue with the flag shadow...but try looking at this...same photo...I've hi-lighted some areas I find interesting.

(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh618/johntfountain/AS11-40-5874-jtf_zpsf110eb03.jpg) (http://s1254.photobucket.com/user/johntfountain/media/AS11-40-5874-jtf_zpsf110eb03.jpg.html)

it might be difficult to see in my file. So download your own from the link ArMap posted and zoom in and take a look...A blue streak of some sort and a small dot of unknown origin...

Peace
Rock..
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 02, 2014, 09:59:49 am
So, you are saying the two dark lines which are behind the astronaut (and which also connect directly WITH the feet of the astronaut), that one of those lines is the shadow from the flag pole?
No. :)

What I am saying is that the shadow is behind the astronaut's shadow, as you can see on the yellow box in the image below.

(click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Apollo_11_4.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Apollo_11_4.jpg)

Quote
If so, please explain the odd way the flag pole avoids connecting to it's own shadow, as the astronaut does his! Or to put it a different way, how can there be a shadow-free zone directly to the right of the flag, but no shadow-free zone to the right of the astronaut?
We don't see the pole's shadow connected to the pole because the ground is not flat, there's a slight elevation between the camera and the flag pole that hides the spot where the pole enters the ground.

Photos AS11-40-5885 (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS11/AS11-40-5885.JPG) and AS11-40-5886 (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS11/AS11-40-5886.JPG) show the flag from the other side and we can see the shadow starting on the spot where the pole enters the ground, as expected.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 02, 2014, 10:14:02 am
I don't know what a TIFF is, and I don't understand how the link provided to "those famous disappearing TIFFs" is any different from the others, except it is faded out and has vertical lines on both sides...can you please clarify?
A TIFF is, as Sgt.Rocknroll said, an image file format, the most versatile file format and is used in many science-related areas, although it has been replaced in many cases by the more recent PNG format, as both have lossless compression options (or even no compression, as suggested by the Portuguese central archives as the best method of archiving digital images).

My reference to "those famous disappearing TIFFs" is related to something that happened some years ago, when those TIFFs could be found on that site and I was downloading several while they started to disappear. I'm sure zorgon remembers that. :)

Although they appear slightly faded, those are the versions I consider as the closest to the original photos, as they are the ones that show the whole photo frame (including those vertical lines that show slightly more and that are left out on any other versions I have seen) and have the highest resolution.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 10:39:10 am
Sorry, I don't see it the same way.  Especially since, by your explanation, the shadow of the actual flag itself ought to be somewhere in the photo.  The pole would need to be much taller for the flag shadow to be clear out of view, or precisely inline with the pole, but the ripples blow that option.  Thank you for your kind and helpful clarification, ArMaP.  I wish you peace and a good destiny to you too, Rock...despite the tone of your reply. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 02, 2014, 10:49:43 am
Sorry, I don't see it the same way.  Especially since, by your explanation, the shadow of the actual flag itself ought to be somewhere in the photo.
Don't you see the shadow inside that yellow rectangle? ???

Quote
The pole would need to be much taller for the flag shadow to be clear out of view, or precisely inline with the pole, but the ripples blow that option.
Or the Sun was relatively low, which was the case, as the astronaut's legs are not as long as their shadows, right? That's more noticeable on photo AS11-40-5872 (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/AS11/AS11-40-5872.JPG).

Quote
Thank you for your kind and helpful clarification, ArMaP.
No problem, I hate misunderstandings, so I always try to make things as clear as possible. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 02, 2014, 10:51:39 am
it might be difficult to see in my file. So download your own from the link ArMap posted and zoom in and take a look...A blue streak of some sort and a small dot of unknown origin...
After looking at photo AS11-40-5872 for my previous post I think that blue streak is a result of light hitting the lens from the side, not enough to make a real lens flare but enough to create those light interferences.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 11:04:02 am
I see an exceptionally faint, broken-up tiny line MAYBE...but still no shadow from the rectangular flag.  The pole appears to be ahead of him.  Something other than an almost imperceptible dash should be there...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 02, 2014, 11:04:29 am
Sorry, I don't see it the same way.  Especially since, by your explanation, the shadow of the actual flag itself ought to be somewhere in the photo.  The pole would need to be much taller for the flag shadow to be clear out of view, or precisely inline with the pole, but the ripples blow that option.  Thank you for your kind and helpful clarification, ArMaP.  I wish you peace and a good destiny to you too, Rock...despite the tone of your reply. :)

No tone, just the facts as I see them. Some people come here and expect others to do their homework for them. Something as simple as file extensions should be know by all, especially when your dealing with photos. A simple search on Google, yahoo or other search engine would have given you your answer what a tiff was. Now see I've broken my resolution to be more kind and gentle. Back to the kinder softer Rock. Sorry   ::) ;D



Rock 8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 11:33:27 am
Apology accepted, thank you.  I actually thought perhaps TIFF was some sort of terminology pertaining to odd things, used by regulars here in a site with many odd concepts.  But anyway, have you googled TIFF lately?  Or any acronym in general lately?  It can be quite difficult to decipher the correct meaning, when so many different uses can be found.
ie:Toronto International Film Festival
The Investment Fund For Foundations
Tokyo International Film Festival
Thailand International Furniture Fair
To Inform Families First | TIFF's Initiative
TIRANA INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
TIFF - The Inigo Film Festival
etc...
Landing upon lists of results such as these can make it seem quite prudent to simply ask the folks who speak it, in my way of thinking...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 02, 2014, 01:47:46 pm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

That's what comes up first when I google TIFF. Pretty easy, but I hope the point was taken.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Pimander on November 02, 2014, 04:42:07 pm
So you're all happy now?  NASA really landed men safely on the Moon AND THE FOOTAGE IS NOT FAKED?  Are you sure?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 02, 2014, 11:24:32 pm
I have no doubt men walking on the moon is a complete and utter fraud.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 02:24:13 am
I have no doubt men walking on the moon is a complete and utter fraud.
Why?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 03, 2014, 02:38:54 am
Why?

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_12.jpg)

[youtube]K1Zy2BkRv9Q
[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Zy2BkRv9Q


 8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 04:53:38 am
Well, in addition to the other contributions here, it's been pretty well offered to anyone curious enough to look.  I guess the last I'll add is this-Why would they need to study the Van Allen belts NOW, if they truly conquered space??? One of two things happened: either NASA sent astronauts through the poorly understood Van Allen belts, risking their lives rather than admit they lacked understanding, OR-the whole thing was a farce, which is made abundantly clear by the fact they are still studying and discovering the not 2 but THREE Van Allen belts, and the dangers they entail. 
Nasa, supposedly the most brilliant of all, would they actually do anything, without knowing EVERYTHING, first???
Their most recent findings confirm either they didn't really know much and sent them anyway, or they never went and now they're learning why... 
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/nasa-probes-studying-earth-s-radiation-belts-to-celebrate-two-year-anniversary/#.VFdpYEZEQnI
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 01:35:45 pm
Why would they need to study the Van Allen belts NOW, if they truly conquered space???
Because "conquering space" is not the same thing as understanding it. :)

Quote
One of two things happened: either NASA sent astronauts through the poorly understood Van Allen belts, risking their lives rather than admit they lacked understanding, OR-the whole thing was a farce, which is made abundantly clear by the fact they are still studying and discovering the not 2 but THREE Van Allen belts, and the dangers they entail.
So, there are two possibilities, but you ignore one of them, the one I think is the most likely, specially considering the political situation at the time, when the US needed something popular.

Quote
Nasa, supposedly the most brilliant of all, would they actually do anything, without knowing EVERYTHING, first???
Yes, why not?

Did the 15th century sailors know the whole Atlantic and Indian oceans before they ventured through them to discover other lands in 20 metres long caravels, at a time most ships never lost sight of land?

Waiting to know everything about something before exploring it is a sure way of being the last, not the first.

PS: being Portuguese, I see space exploration as a modern version of the sea exploration made by the Portuguese and the Spanish in the 15th and 16th centuries, with the obvious differences, but still an exploration of new and really unknown areas. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 02:12:57 pm
Behold the beaming pride of Armstrong!:

[youtube]7V9HCj9zb3U[/youtube]


Share in the jubilation of the post-flight news conference!:

[youtube]ifx0Yx8vlrY[/youtube]


Whatsoever could Armstrong mean by these words spoken to schoolchildren?:

[youtube]Smt8ZLhn_f8[/youtube]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 02:48:10 pm
This is quite compelling!

[youtube]57OPaJoUhIk[/youtube]


Hmmmmm...quite a bit to try and refute here!

[youtube]A6MvcIs4OcQ[/youtube]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 03:04:32 pm
This is quite compelling!
Not for me. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 03:05:35 pm
Hmmmmm...quite a bit to try and refute here!

[youtube]A6MvcIs4OcQ[/youtube]
Maybe, but I'm not going to waste 10 minutes of my time with a video that can be as useless as all the ones before it.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 03:27:05 pm
Spoken like a true detective on the inquisition for truth! 

You want the truth?

[youtube]MMzd40i8TfA[/youtube]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 03, 2014, 03:34:54 pm
Maybe, but I'm not going to waste 10 minutes of my time with a video that can be as useless as all the ones before it.

Regarding this one:

(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2qb4o5t.jpg)

Is there any other way that movement happening without the astronaut being lifted by something similar to a wire?

Or now we know where MJ learned that move, master antigravitational lean moonwalk astronaut   :P

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVkMbtOa0j4[/youtube]

 ;D

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 03, 2014, 03:43:11 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaK6khs8aMw[/youtube]

Just maybe the human species ('Human Primate') are the Apes ?   :o

But I still enjoy the experience of the 'human Primate' in spite of everything ...   :)


There is an abundance of humour in this 'species', introduced about 6,000 years ago, often confused
with earlier models. ('Species')    :(
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 03, 2014, 05:10:21 pm
You want the truth?

The TRUTH  is we were already up there with the Russians before Apollo

 8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 05:18:45 pm
You want the truth?
Yes, I want the truth, and I don't want to waste my time looking at videos, I hate videos, as they force me to spend the time as the person that made it wanted, not as I want to. That's one of the reasons why I prefer written material to videos, as I can read at my own speed.

And yes, I can handle the truth, I have done it all my life. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 06:23:35 pm
Well, sorry for you then ArMaP chap-your loss! 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 03, 2014, 06:33:27 pm
Well, sorry for you then ArMaP chap-your loss!
Well, to me is exactly the opposite, it would be an irreparable loss if I had wasted 10 minutes with the video to reach the conclusion that it only shows some guy's opinion instead of real evidences, as usual, and that could probably be resumed in one or two sentences. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 03, 2014, 06:42:22 pm
You won't find 'The Truth' through a 'human Primate' !


Another way needs to be Considered.

That is IF you want to really discover 'The Truth" ?

But before you can do this one has to realise what we are.

NO .... The 'Real You' is NOT the 'human Primate'.

The 'human Primate' is the one you are experiencing.    :)


So the alternative WAY is NOT through the 'Primate' !


IF we  believe the 'Real Your/me' is the Primate then we are then kept
in the quagmire of the proverbial B.S.   :(
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 03, 2014, 07:40:38 pm
The TRUTH  is we were already up there with the Russians before Apollo

 8)

And all they have to do is search the Living Moon and piece it together. Hell we're up there now! Just not on the nightly news.
 ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Jusdewit8 on November 03, 2014, 09:11:09 pm
If "if's" and "but's"
were candies and nuts
you'd have a real Merry Christmas!

lol  yer too skeerd to find out something that might disrupt all your tidy beliefs!

I used to believe as strongly as you, until I ran across that puppet on a string video which zorgon and RUSSO posted.  You don't think I was shocked to then find more, moRE, MORE questionable evidence?

I shall beat my head against your brick wall no further.  One man's "waste of time"  is another man's proof, and I'm willing to bet you are so short on time and long on intuitive rationalization, the twain shall never meet. 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 03, 2014, 11:36:39 pm
The problem is..... Can anyone prove categorically, we did go to the moon aboard a skyrocket
which produces nothing more than a huge Fart ?   :)

That's right .... our so called technology is just that, the spewing out of its rear end, expanding gas
to push that skyrocket in the general direction.

The engines are just primitive 'Thermal Converters'  ....  LOL.

Hell I don't think one can get much more primitive than that.

And they still can't get it reliable today.   :(

It's 'Time' for some real advancement in technology !   8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 04, 2014, 05:17:47 am
And all they have to do is search the Living Moon and piece it together.
And believe the information. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 04, 2014, 05:21:05 am
And believe the information. :)

More than 80% of the info online at TLM is backed up by official documentation and links to source.

No belief required   :P

And do not forget you like us because we found a few anomalies that have YOU stumped   8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 04, 2014, 05:38:29 am
Too bad Z, you couldn't make it a requirement to join Pegasus, that they have to access and READ, certain articles on TLM.

'I have read and understand the articles I have read'....check the box... ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 04, 2014, 05:50:45 am
If "if's" and "but's"
were candies and nuts
you'd have a real Merry Christmas!
Only if they are sugar-free candies, I am diabetic. :(

Quote
lol  yer too skeerd to find out something that might disrupt all your tidy beliefs!
No, I just do not accept everybody else's beliefs as the truth, I need more than just some opinions. :)

Quote
I used to believe as strongly as you, until I ran across that puppet on a string video which zorgon and RUSSO posted.
One thing I noticed is that, some times, those that have the strongest beliefs are the ones that change to a new one more easily. That's why I try to avoid strong beliefs about any thing, I just see things as being more likely to be close to reality or not, and I don't have any problem changing my opinion about any thing, as long as real evidence is provided instead of opinions.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 04, 2014, 05:58:21 am
More than 80% of the info online at TLM is backed up by official documentation and links to source.

No belief required   :P
There's always a need to believe, we have to start believing in some thing and go from there, but even if we believe in something it shouldn't make us think that what we are believing in is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as they use to say. :)

Also, if something is based in those 80% and in some or all of the remaining 20%, I don't think we should give it the same weight as something based only on those 80%.

Quote
And do not forget you like us because we found a few anomalies that have YOU stumped   8)
Don't worry, I have a good memory. ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on November 04, 2014, 10:00:00 am
If the Saturn V was a true wonder of the age as you put it. Would you please post the Saturn V construction drawings? I'm not talking about the few (I have them) general arrangement drawings, but the actual constructions drawings?...Are they still classified after 40 years or so?
Not saying they didn't exist or launched but we have all the Apollo/Mercury/Gemini drawings, just not the Saturn V...
Now circling the earth several times, cut to the studio for the landing on the moon and eventually, coming back to Earth and cut to the CBS/NBC/ABC newsfeeds...Ahhh there you have it...

I'll see what I can find within the archives I keep on the Apollo/Mercury programs as well as the rockets themselves. I need to unpack all that here soon anyway for the space section of an online property I'm finishing the build out on. As I recall, I have some basic tech sheets...and of course, half the world watched them launch many times over.

Quote
Some of you guys are new here and I'll also include some that have been here for a very long time, try, OH TRY going to www.thelivingmoon.com and do some reading... ::)

I'll get to looking over more of that. Of course, it is important to note... Some of us are new to a specific website, while being familiar with some topics to various levels, from long years of learning and following them, too.

Quote
Oh and btw,,,the shielding on the Apollo craft were woefully inadequate for going to the moon...Just saying.. ;D

So we can count you among those who think the Apollo and Mercury programs resulted in a ..hoax? scam? However we'd term it, I suppose. That is what makes the world interesting though. Everyone has their own informed and educated opinion. ..or do you figure they had shielding beyond the claims, and so DID go?

Personally, I'm still awaiting word as to where the men went, for each mission sent to the moon, if the moon wasn't it? The world watched them take off, and then watched them plucked from the sea. You figure they just ran orbital circles for the proscribed time period then came down to meet the Carriers at sea? I suppose anything is possible if first we assume nothing is too wild.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 05, 2014, 05:34:51 pm
Regarding this one:

(http://oi62.tinypic.com/2qb4o5t.jpg)

Is there any other way that movement happening without the astronaut being lifted by something similar to a wire?
Yes, to me it looks like the left hand of the astronaut on the ground is grabbing the right hand of the other astronaut, and he pushes himself up using the other astronaut as support, besides using the legs to help getting on his feet. We can see the astronaut on the right compensating the extra weight when the other one is getting up, which also supports the idea that the astronaut on the left used the other as support to get up.

PS: sorry for taking so long to answer. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 05, 2014, 06:08:21 pm
Compare body behaviour to that seen while simulating moons gravity on earth ....  :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 05, 2014, 06:25:27 pm
Compare body behaviour to that seen while simulating moons gravity on earth ....  :)
With the same suits and difference in pressure between the suits and the exterior?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 05, 2014, 08:02:11 pm
With the same suits and difference in pressure between the suits and the exterior?
Yes.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 06, 2014, 02:18:59 am
Where are those images available?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 02:28:48 am
Yes, to me it looks like the left hand of the astronaut on the ground is grabbing the right hand of the other astronaut, and he pushes himself up using the other astronaut as support, besides using the legs to help getting on his feet. We can see the astronaut on the right compensating the extra weight when the other one is getting up, which also supports the idea that the astronaut on the left used the other as support to get up.

PS: sorry for taking so long to answer. :)

ok.. fair enough.

now look at this one... when something falls from the astronaut's backpack: (its the same episode btw)

go to 1:26
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqi5ckFr1Ow[/youtube]

Quote
ShaddHammer9 meses atrás (editada)
 
We analysed this in physics. Forget for now about the idea of centre of mass for now, there have been plenty of people talking about wires and such. instead let's look at some basic physics. at about 1 min 35 look for the item falling from his backpack. For this we will be looking at the basic "SuVat" equation (S = distance, u = initial velocity, V = final velocity, a = acceleration and t = time), you need at least 3 variables in order to work out anything of value. Estimate that at 1.5 metres off the ground, that is S. OK good now look for the framerate of the original film which is in NTSC format. which is 30 per second. and it fell for a total of 17 frames. and U being 0 as the initial velocity.
Using the equation S = ut+1/2at² where S = 1.5, U = 0 and t = 17/30 seconds we are looking for the acceleration (which will give us the gravity) this gives us 1.5 = 0 x 17/30 + 1/2 at². 0 times 17/30 here being pointless for obvious reasons we simplify it to 1.5 = 1/2a17/30² or 2S=at². re ordering this you get 2S/t² = a. given that 17/30 is 0.56 (rounding this rather than using the recurring digits to simplify) then 0.56² is 0.3136 then continuing we proceed with 3/0.3136 which gives us 9.57 (rounded to 3 significant figures) this gives an acceleration of approximately 9.57, what exactly does this mean or have to do with a hoax, well I am glad you asked! Basically the earths gravity is 9.78 m/s². Pretty darn close right, well what about a margin for error of estimating the height? good question! Let us compare this to the moons gravity which is 1.622 m/s², now even with a much larger margin for error there is no way the calculations could be that far off... seriously look up the equations and try it yourself. The item falling from the astronauts pack is accelerating at earths gravitational speed. nuff said. However PLEASE feel free to correct me if I am wrong.?

It fell like its under Earth's Gravity.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:45:54 am
The Lunar Lander had a single skin... it had no airlock

Explain to me how THIS twisted piece of cardboard  :P was air tight


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_001.png)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:48:52 am
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_003.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_002.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_005.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_004.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_007.png)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/04images/Apollo_Fake/Twisted_006.png)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 06, 2014, 03:41:45 am
Where are those images available?

Were such simulations produced in their training before supposedly going to the moon ?

I know they experienced higher G forces in a Centrifuge and weightlessness in Water tanks
and Aircraft performing required manoeuvres.

And I seem to remember seeing something in Peggy some time ago, where they were
supported by wires or other, to practice walking or hoping as believed would be the case
on the Moon ?

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 06, 2014, 05:58:19 am
Were such simulations produced in their training before supposedly going to the moon ?
I don't know, as you said "Compare body behaviour to that seen while simulating moons gravity on earth" I thought you knew. :(

Quote
I know they experienced higher G forces in a Centrifuge and weightlessness in Water tanks
and Aircraft performing required manoeuvres.
Neither of those have the same difference in pressure between the suits and the exterior, unless the aircraft had a vacuum chamber, but even then weightlessness is not the same thing as the gravity at the Moon's surface.

Quote
And I seem to remember seeing something in Peggy some time ago, where they were supported by wires or other, to practice walking or hoping as believed would be the case on the Moon ?
Again, those are not the same conditions as on the Moon, so I suppose there's nothing to compare these images to. :(
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 06:02:48 am
Id love to know who moved the camera to follow the Lander AND  who ZOOMED out.

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/NASA_MOON-ROCKET_APOLLO-17_zpsjphqw25n.gif)

Also the " Ascent stage" dosent resemble all the other pictures that we see of it. look carefully
its completely different.
because its a model.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 06:14:30 am
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/crosshair_anomalies_zps139a86f8.jpg)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 06:27:34 am
I saw a documentry on the Apollo landing, can't remember the name though, and it explained how that shot was done.
A young engineer, panned the camera up with a joystick. Now they knew there was a time delay and he practiced timing the pan with the delay. They all were surprised how well it came out.

so now you know..

Rock...


btw...I believe we went to the moon, just not the way it was protrayed.

Rock...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 06:30:38 am
And what happened to the Apollo 16 ascent stage? Hmmmmm.

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/euyoj_zpsdqxpc5ad.gif)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 06:32:19 am
I saw a documentry on the Apollo landing, can't remember the name though, and it explained how that shot was done.
A young engineer, panned the camera up with a joystick. Now they knew there was a time delay and he practiced timing the pan with the delay. They all were surprised how well it came out.

so now you know..

Rock...




btw...I believe we went to the moon, just not the way it was protrayed.

Rock...

Thanks Sarge.
Elvis
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Lunica on November 06, 2014, 06:32:46 am
Id love to know who moved the camera to follow the Lander AND  who ZOOMED out.

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/NASA_MOON-ROCKET_APOLLO-17_zpsjphqw25n.gif)

Also the " Ascent stage" dosent resemble all the other pictures that we see of it. look carefully
its completely different.
because its a model.

This is a genuine movieclip?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

In that case I think it are the green aliens who did the camera work (not the grey ones)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 06, 2014, 06:35:28 am
The Lunar Lander had a single skin... it had no airlock

Explain to me how THIS twisted piece of cardboard  :P was air tight
I don't understand that, it had no airlock but was airtight? ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 07:50:13 am
This is a genuine movieclip?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

In that case I think it are the green aliens who did the camera work (not the grey ones)

Yes it is the genuine article. No aliens involved! Just a young engineer who spent a lot of time practicing!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Lunica on November 06, 2014, 08:22:25 am
Yes it is the genuine article movieclip . No aliens involved! Just a young engineer who spent a lot of time practicing!

 8)

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Somamech on November 06, 2014, 08:47:51 am
This thread kinda gets me wondering how we could fake a moon landing.  Given that we have people in apsects of engineering and other related disciplines as members here we just might appear legit  :o 8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 10:19:51 am
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/boing_zpsrwaac2bn.gif)


Boing, boing, boing, boing ;D :o
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 06, 2014, 10:29:47 am
This is a good one..

Same backdrop anyone?????

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/same_zpsn8hxnpuh.gif)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Lunica on November 06, 2014, 10:36:48 am
I think it is an young engineer who spent a long time making the scene in a studio? ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 11:01:53 am
This is a good one..

Same backdrop anyone?????


Yeah... i remember that one, its really embarrassing. Its like this one:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SuTW0zUnjvI/TxkkKKJCZxI/AAAAAAAADZA/mp_dSkrelBs/s1600/15lemornolemcomp.jpg)

embarrassing.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 11:07:15 am
I think it is an young engineer who spent a long time making the scene in a studio? ;D

Nope, saw him actually do it!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 11:14:29 am

btw...I believe we went to the moon, just not the way it was protrayed.

Rock...

I believe we still on there, and not just for mining purposes.

Talking about staged shows:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0Dw3qPRqZwk/TxkktGETJjI/AAAAAAAADZY/I-dNAREs9nU/s1600/15splicephotos2lems.jpg)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IURm6gImYOU/Txkk0HAjyGI/AAAAAAAADZk/PCLxlWVVVYg/s1600/15twolems.jpg)

 ::)

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 06, 2014, 11:22:56 am
Another view:

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.

It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth.

Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”


Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon



There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules.

Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look?

I’m guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA.


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/369227main_aldrinLM-640.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/369227main_aldrinLM_full.jpg)

Notice that the 10,000 lb thrust motors did not disturb the lunar surface, nor splash dust on those landing pods.   :P


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo_11_Lunar_Module_Eagle-640.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo_11_Lunar_Module_Eagle-FULL.jpg)


While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon.

And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit!

Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage.
 
The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit.

It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of friging nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth.

It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour.

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/AS11-40-5922HR-640.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/AS11-40-5922HR-FULL.jpg)



But we’ll get to all that a little later.

I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability.

If you don't believe that, ask Sarge or ArMaP.   :P

source (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html)

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 06, 2014, 12:52:19 pm
Hi ArMap.

Many simulations were set up on earth re. the conditions on the moon for astronaut training.   :)

IF what you suggest were true, WHY would millions of us$'s be spent on  training exercises NOT relevant
to the moons environment ?

IF what you suggest is true re. a vacuum on the moon WHAT difference would this make on an astronaut
in a pressure suit ?

Pilots use Pressure suits in high flying aircraft.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252168/Preparing-moon-walk-The-ridiculous-ways-astronauts-prepared-significant-moment-history.html


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/22/article-2252168-169F7D8E000005DC-582_634x457.jpg)



(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/22/article-2252168-169F7DDA000005DC-9_634x431.jpg)



(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/22/article-2252168-169F7DCE000005DC-209_634x461.jpg)


What made you think I suggested one was weightless on the moon ?

I was referring to a range of exercises used to simulate going to the Moon and NOT just on the Moon.   :)


Oh and by the way it is B.S. about being 'weightless' in space.


IF a satellite was to stop in its orbit, it would soon fall back to earth !

IF in orbit about the moon then the satellite would soon fall to the moon.

IF the Moon was weightless in Space it would NOT remain in orbit about the Earth.

IF the Earth was weightless it would NOT remain in orbit about the Sun.

Neither would we have Tidal effects re large lakes and seas on Earth if things were weightless in Space.  LOL.



The condition of like being weightless, is a phenomena of being in 'Orbit' or traversing in an 'arch'
suitable to produce the phenomena.

It's all about 'Dynamics' NOT Gravity which produces the phenomena humans are lead to believe
is 'weightlessness'.   :)


Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 01:35:40 pm
I don't understand that, it had no airlock but was airtight? ???
`

An airlock is a double door so you don't have to empty the interior of air when you leave or enter the ship. That wastes a lot of air and they only had so much.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 01:49:06 pm
There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules.

Too bad that NASA FORGOT how they did it. Seems they threw out all the drawings  :P Last I saw they were reverse engineering the Saturn V and looking at scrap yards for parts

Quote
Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look?

Yes I have  and I posted the DETAILED images above showing the buckled and crumpled cardboard that NO ONE seem to want to address.

Quote
I’m guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA.

It is not hard to get good high resolution images when you take the pictures in a studio :P  But looking at your last picture you can see the already buckling outer plates (top left)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/AS11-40-5922HR-640.jpg)


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/Apollo_11_003.jpg)

So Herr Wabbit  please address the issue of the carboard plates :P

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/euyoj_zpsdqxpc5ad.gif)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:03:59 pm
How NASA Mooned the Public...

For the record I too KNOW we are on the moon... that is the whole premise of The Living Moon

but Apollo was a publicity stunt hoax

filmed through THIS spacecraft window

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/098027c0.jpe)

and played out in THIS 'lunar mudule'

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/09a1bae0.jpe)

using THIS model for the moon shots and the fly over shots

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08a9f120.jpe)

After pain stakingly HAND PAINTING the details (no air brush :P) onto the models using the Lunar Orbiter images

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ba0120.jpe)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08df88b0.jpe)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ff88b0.jpe)

Add a little lighting control....

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/091f48e0.jpe)

and then a little of that 'NASA Green Cheese' color (they use NASA Lava Orange on Venus shots) to give that eerie tint we all see in Apollo images (that they later decided to change back to gray scale)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/099307c0.jpe)

And VOILA!!!

Those movie sets are HUGE  They needed a HUGE budget to make those giant scenes

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/087a75e0.jpe)

 and that giant revolving moon model

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/089515e0.jpe)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:09:04 pm
Then for the other stage...

NASA calls in the USGS


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/CinderLakes_explosion.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/craterfield.jpg)

The general public is so easily fooled (they believe the official version of 9/11 too  :P)  but they went to a lot of trouble and expense to fool the rest of us
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:17:35 pm
This is a good one..

Same backdrop anyone?????

(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/same_zpsn8hxnpuh.gif)

Thank you for that!

That is what I was looking for for the Hills of Apollo Thread. This is exactly what I was trying to point out in that thread There are MANY photos that use the same backdrop. NASA never anticipated us all having home computers a thousand times more powerful that the ones they used to 'land on the moon'
I will copy this to that thread
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=7274.msg101696#msg101696

How do you add hills?  Well it's easy if you use a GREEN SCREEN  a common item in Hollywood  ::)


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_09_02.jpg)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_14.jpg)

Puppet on a String

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon8/Training/ig264_walk_moon_imax_12.jpg)

Then you simply add in the back ground later. Hollywood movies do it all the time... make you think they are filming 'on location' when they are in fact in a studio

Problem here was that the NASA film crew was SLOPPY on the back drops and we caught them at it now  8)

I seem to recall that James Bond once broke into the set and took the moon buggy for a ride

 ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 06, 2014, 02:19:49 pm
IF what you suggest were true, WHY would millions of us$'s be spent on  training exercises NOT relevant to the moons environment ?
What are you saying that I suggested?

Quote
IF what you suggest is true re. a vacuum on the moon WHAT difference would this make on an astronaut in a pressure suit ?
The higher pressure inside the suit makes the suit appear inflated, so it's not as flexible as if the pressure was the same inside and out of the suit.

Quote
What made you think I suggested one was weightless on the moon ?
I didn't think that, why are you saying it?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 06, 2014, 02:30:21 pm
An airlock is a double door so you don't have to empty the interior of air when you leave or enter the ship. That wastes a lot of air and they only had so much.
Does that mean that they emptied the Lunar Module whenever they went out and filled it again when they came back?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 02:42:49 pm
Does that mean that they emptied the Lunar Module whenever they went out and filled it again when they came back?

Yes exactly. which also brings up the question of how they dumped the spacesuits before taking off

Of all the theories that serve to prove that we may, or may not, have gone to the moon there is one issue above all for me that says we can't have gone.

How did the astronauts get rid of their backpacks before leaving the moon, how did the astronauts enter and exit the lunar lander with their backpacks and spacesuits on through a hatch not big enough through which to enter and exit?

There was no air lock, there was a limited amount of oxygen supply on the lander. These are facts. So having re-entered the lander prior to leaving the moon how did the astronauts remove their backpacks, throw them out of the lander as their weight meant they were too heavy to be returned up to the command module. There was no air lock, so if they opened the hatch the astronauts would loose all their atmosphere, and there wouldn't be sufficient supply for them to reach the command module. Did they hold their breath, open the door, lob out the backpacks and other items too heavy to bring back, and trust to luck? Wouldn't opening a hatch on a pressurized compartment in an airless environment cause some kind of drastic event inside the lander with things being sucked out and blown all over the place, wouldn't this pose a severe risk to the astronauts? I guess people could add their own thoughts to this.

Like I mentioned previously, the hatch seems to me to be one of the most unexplained and unexplored elements of the moon landing conspiracy. I just don't see how the landings were possible with the size of the hatch, the entry and exit from the lander with the bulky space suits and the size of the hatch and not risk damage to either the suits, packs, or lander itself.

Maybe someone should ask Mr Armstrong on this issue, or any of the other astronauts, on the issues of getting in and out of the lander.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread844752/pg2
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: VillageIdiot on November 06, 2014, 03:34:16 pm
You guys have totally destroyed my childhood.  :'(
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 03:47:57 pm
The years of study that so many have put in, to demonstrate that the pictures & video of the moon visits are very flawed, has made it impossible to believe that they represent the truth of what really happened.

But...why all the work, flawed or not, to fake the photo narrative for every mission? If we never went at all, why so many faked missions & pics?

What was the objective?

Well, I think that it was to cover up the actual missions...no matter what happened for real, this was to be the official story...flaws & all.

And it has worked! Here we all are still going on about the photos. It is obvious they are not real. So we MUST move on to the next point which is ...what happened when they (the Russians & the USA) got to the moon?

We are too easily diverted from the real questions by these small details!
..take, for example, 2 people watching a missile coming at them & they are debating what color it is!......rather than what it's objective is, which is to blow them up! If they had done that they would have run away & avoided being "blowed right up"!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 04:12:37 pm

But...why all the work, flawed or not, to fake the photo narrative for every mission? If we never went at all, why so many faked missions & pics?

What was the objective?

Well, I think that it was to cover up the actual missions...no matter what happened for real, this was to be the official story...flaws & all.

THAT is our take on it as well  The PUBLIC Apollo 'Missions' were to provide "plausible deniability' for any leaks that occured from the real space program

It was in fact the REASON John Matyas and I started off on the Living Moon website. It was our INTENT to show that we were already mining the moon before Apollo...

We spent YEARS providing REAMS of official documents to support this  from the Project Horizon papers, the Army Deep Space Operations at Kwajalien, the NAVAL Space Command who had astronauts BEFORE NASA, to the secret heavy lifter launches currently at Kwajalien and Vandenburg  where we have a guy fro 21SOPS wants to fill us in

Quote
And it has worked! Here we all are still going on about the photos. It is obvious they are not real. So we MUST move on to the next point which is ...what happened when they (the Russians & the USA) got to the moon?

Yes it worked well LOL People are still on about the photos and passing over all the scads of HARD EVIDENCE we have collected and presented here on the real space program

Heck we even have guys that work at NASA telling us there are 'issues'  One even posts here wearing his black ops clean suit

But NO ONE is listening

(save a very select few)

Fortunately  those select few keep me going  8)

We are too easily diverted from the real questions by these small details!
..take, for example, 2 people watching a missile coming at them & they are debating what color it is!......rather than what it's objective is, which is to blow them up! If they had done that they would have run away & avoided being "blowed right up"!
[/quote]
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 04:26:42 pm
The year is 1954...

when NASA was still NACA

when Werner von Braun was working for the US ARMY SMDC


THIS is the day they started to LIE to you about the REAL space program

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Disney/GPN-2000-000060.jpg)
Photo Credit 1954 NACA

This photo is Walt Disney with von Braun holding a model of the Mars Glider

US ARMY SMDC (Space and Missile Defence Command) was Operation Redstone Arsenal who put together the plans for an Army Moon Base on Farside (with Russian help BTW) in a four volume 600 page document called Project Horizon (I have Vol 1,2 and 4)

US ARMY SMDC  was the group who brought the NAZI scientists to the USA Operation Paperclip

US ARMY SMDC  is the group that owns and operates Kwajalien Launch Site hidden in the Pacific where they support NASA missions and Deep Space Operations

Why Walt Disney?

Because;
1) He was a famous Hollywood film maker
2) he had the eyes and ears of the CHILDREN
3) He was a popular trusted public figure

So WHY meet with von Braun?

Well Von Braun was working on Project Horizon, the MOON BASE on the Farside for the Army

No if you search the web you will find an IMAGE og a MOON BASE still circulationg in the UFO crowd (silly lemmings  they have the PROOF in front of their nose yet do not see it)

THIS image

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Disney/Moonbase1.jpg)

Yup google it  you will see this alien base on the moon is still out there even today

Well I always tell people to LOOK CLOSELY  Look at the bottom right corner

 8)

This from NASA...

Dr. Werhner von Braun, then Chief, Guided Missile Development Operation Division at Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, was visited by Walt Disney in 1954. In the 1950's, von Braun worked with Disney Studio as a technical director, making three films about space exploration for television. A model of the V-2 rocket is in background.

This from Space.com...

Disney, who would become an international icon, opened Disneyland the same year that von Braun worked as a technical director on three Disney TV programs about space.

The first, ``Man in Space,'' aired on ABC on March 9, 1955. The second, ``Man and the Moon,'' aired the same year, and the final film, ``Mars and Beyond,'' was televised on Dec. 4, 1957.

That IMAGE above was the MOON BASE from the Disney TV show  The COVER STORY in case any info leaked on the real project

See the bottom right corner now? See the MOUSEKATEER emblem?  No?

How about NOW?

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/04images/Disney/disneymoonma1.gif)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 04:28:57 pm
The real details of the "moon" missions can not be known...ever. The Official Secrets Act & the Space Act etc....are in play & we all have to pass away of old age before anything will see the light of day.

Unless a "Pentagon Papers" event..or forced disclosure happens.

But it does not matter. As a 'gotcha moment' ..well it's meaningless. All Govs. have tons of secrets..fake narratives & disinfo!

The real value of moving past this moon stuff is to make a supposition that whatever was happening, it advanced the SECRET space agenda that has led to the current space advances..that are also secret!

But we do know that some form of  American SDI is up & running..as well as China, taking their turn at doing the fake dog & pony show...complete with huge military plans for a moon base & a trip to MARS!

The US military secret unmanned shuttles are doing something up in the Radiation zone (past 300 N. miles) & the whole public PR space race is now between the VIRGIN spaceplane..UFO buff, Mr. Bigalow's space ship & the current private co. supplying the ISS. Then there is that private rocket that blew up!!! Its all to keep our eyes of the real space truth.

60 miles up is not space, Mr. Branson...& Mr. BIG's UFO quest via a space ship is strange as he is also super cozy with big JIM Oberg?

My facebook friend, T.M., from the UK, studied NASA files right after my "Secret NASA Transmissions" release of the 'Tether event' & the other videos we streamed in 2000 & 2001> That plus my visit to Leeds to talk at the University about my research & to show more video had amped up people & T.M. found NASA's secret.."Solar Guardian" file & he was attacked & charged by the US gov. (but the UK got it sorted out..you all know the story)

Still it is all very real & combined with all the research I (& my team) have done, talking to people on the inside...(e mails & other means) & all the video plus the "spooks" who have cozied up ( a truly AMAZING story that I can not tell anyone...yet...)

...I no longer have the luxury of disbelief.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 04:35:06 pm
which is ...what happened when they (the Russians & the USA) got to the moon?

For many years Dr Joe Resnick promised to show me proof that the Russians had TWO bases on Farside and an orbiting platform...

I finally got that proof (Sgt posted it)  only to be told a few days later that the ex Roskosmos scientist who got it for us was a drunken disgrace and not to be trusted

So is the video still valid? Well it is to us... all other info is similarly muddled anyway

I posted a "Test" here (and on previous forums)  Very few people bothered to read it, fewer still tried to comprehend it and only a few I can count on one hand actually 'got it' (mostly)

The thing is that "TEST" paper led me to an endless stream of REAL facts and documents, got me into slightly open doors and got me real inside contacts
 
That ONE little paper contains an encyclopedia of what is going on and I have part two (the space station)

But no one cares :P (save the afore mentione few :P )

Quote
We are too easily diverted from the real questions by these small details!
..take, for example, 2 people watching a missile coming at them & they are debating what color it is!......rather than what it's objective is, which is to blow them up! If they had done that they would have run away & avoided being "blowed right up"!

Humans LOVE to debate and argue... "No I'm right!"   "No your not I'm right!" till that missile takes them out

Kinda makes a case for the elite plan to wipe out 80% of the Useless Eaters in the world

Bwahahahaha
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 04:46:56 pm
The real details of the "moon" missions can not be known...ever. The Official Secrets Act & the Space Act etc....are in play & we all have to pass away of old age before anything will see the light of day.

Agreed which is why I repeatedly say "There will be no disclosure" They have too much to lose

Quote
But it does not matter. As a 'gotcha moment' ..well it's meaningless. All Govs. have tons of secrets..fake narratives & disinfo!

It matters to ME  (and to you :P)  But I decided long ago that "I" need to know and I don't care if anyone believes what I have learned. Because of that I do not reveal sources and I am not 'working in the field' so those on the inside with the real scoop can drop ne bread crumbs of truth to follow

In the years of seeking, those bread crumbs have gotten so bad that they are burying me. I no longer have the ability alone to keep up with all the leads... and as a result I have a real live secret astronaut sitting in the wings not being used

Quote
The real value of moving past this moon stuff is to make a supposition that whatever was happening, it advanced the SECRET space agenda that has led to the current space advances..that are also secret!

So what do we do Martyn? Continue to try to educate "We the Sheeple..."? Or move on and try to get into the inner circle  I mean this guy from 21SOPS called ME to update us.

Perhaps if we do this right... we may not get full disclosure, but I have a hunch that THEY want to use us as a leak  and currently I have dropped the ball because of health and financial concerns. I cannot go it alone anymore and keep up  At the same time its hard to share the load when people are scattered all over the world

Quote
But we do know that some form of  American SDI is up & running..as well as China, taking their turn at doing the fake dog & pony show...complete with huge military plans for a moon base & a trip to MARS!

I KNOW Russia and US work together  Hell NASA needs Russian ships to get to the ISS LOL  I KNOW Chine is in the loop because Buzz Aldrin and Gravwave LLC are working with China on Anti Gravity

They say a Picture is worth a thousand words  This is a volume  LOL

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/04images/NASA/159216main_mg_yuan_full.jpg)

Japan... has an agreement with NASA and NASA has a field office in Japan

(http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/japan/images/Japan-Banner.jpg)

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/japan/index.html

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 06, 2014, 05:06:52 pm
The real details of the "moon" missions can not be known...ever. The Official Secrets Act & the Space Act etc....are in play & we all have to pass away of old age before anything will see the light of day.

At the BOTTOM of every NASA page you will see the FINE PRINT

One in particular
"Freedom of Information Act" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/)

It was easier and clearer before LOL The new version is deeper  But NASA FOIA is protected by;

Exemption 1

Exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act protects from disclosure information
that has been deemed classified "under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy" and is "in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order."1 The Supreme Court has recognized that Congress
intended for the President to bear immediate responsibility for protecting national security,
which includes the development of policy that establishes what information must be classified
to prevent harm to national security.
2 Exemption 1, in turn, is the provision of the FOIA whichaffords protection for such properly classified information.3 The role of the federal judiciary includes the de novo review of an agency's Exemption 1 claims in litigation, with appropriate deference given to the Executive Branch's special expertise in matters of national security.4

So Aliens and their spacecraft would fall under Exemption 1   8)

Exemption 4

§1206.600   General policy.
(a) Notice shall be given to a submitter whenever the information requested is commercial information and has been designated by the submitter as information deemed protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Act, or the Agency otherwise has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4. For the purpose of applying the notice requirements, commercial information is information provided by a submitter and in the possession of NASA, that may arguably be exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Exemption 4 of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The meaning ascribed to this term for the purpose of this notice requirement is separate and should not be confused with use of this or similar terms in determining whether information satisfies one of the elements of Exemption 4.

So no info on new tech they develop until its cleared for public domain... say 30-50 years  :P


All the GOOD STUFF at NASA is kept HERE. If you know WHAT to ask for and WHO to ask you can sometimes get access as I did for the Methane on Mars report

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Life/NASA_Access_001.png)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 06, 2014, 05:08:40 pm

What was the objective?


Pre-dating the previous material from the same source:

If the Moon landings were faked, then one question that naturally arises is: why would any government go to such extreme lengths to mount such an elaborate hoax?
 
The most obvious answer (and the one most frequently cited by skeptics) is to reclaim a sense of national pride that had been stripped away by America's having played follow-the-leader with the Soviets for an entire decade. While this undoubtedly played a large role, there are other factors as well – factors that haven’t been as fully explored. But before we look at those, we must first deal with the question of whether it would have even been possible to pull off such an enormous hoax.
 
Could so many people have really been duped into believing such an outrageous lie, if that in fact was what it was? To answer that question, we have to keep in mind that we are talking about the summer of 1969 here. Those old enough to have been there will recall that they – along with the vast majority of politically active people in the country – spent that particular period of time primarily engaged in tripping on some really good acid (most likely from the lab of Mr. Owsley).
 
How hard then would it really have been to fool most of you? I probably could have stuck a fish bowl on my head, wrapped myself in aluminum foil, and then filmed myself high-stepping across my backyard and most of you would have believed that I was Moonwalking. Some of you couldn't entirely rule out the possibility that everyone was walking on the Moon.
 
In truth, not everyone was fooled by the alleged Moon landings. Though it is rarely discussed these days, a significant number of people gave NASA’s television productions a thumbs-down. As Wired magazine has reported, “when Knight Newspapers polled 1,721 US residents one year after the first moon landing, it found that more than 30 percent of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon.” Given that overall trust in government was considerably higher in those pre-Watergate days, the fact that nearly a third of Americans doubted what they were ‘witnessing’ through their television sets is rather remarkable.
 
When Fox ran a special on the Moon landings some years back and reported that 1-in-5 Americans had doubts about the Apollo missions, various ‘debunking’ websites cried foul and claimed that the actual percentage was much lower. BadAstronomy.com, for example, claims that the actual figure is about 6%, and that roughly that many people will agree “with almost any question that is asked of them.” Hence, there are only a relative handful of kooks who don’t believe that we’ve ever been to the Moon.
 
All of those websites fail to mention, of course, that among the people who experienced the events as they were occurring, nearly 1-in-3 had doubts, a number considerably higher than the number that Fox used. And, needless to say, the ‘debunkers’ also failed to mention that 1-in-4 young Americans, a number also higher than the figure Fox used, have doubts about the Moon landings.
 
Returning then to the question of why such a ruse would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the year 1969. Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our brand new president, and his ascension to the throne is in part due to his promises to the American people that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. But Tricky Dick has a bit of a problem on his hands in that he has absolutely no intention of ending the war. In fact, he would really, really like to escalate the conflict as much as possible. But to do so, he needs to set up a diversion – some means of stoking the patriotic fervor of the American people so that they will blindly rally behind him.
 

In short, he needs to wag the dog.
 
This has, of course, traditionally been done by embarking on some short-term, low-risk military endeavor. The problem for Big Dick, however, is that a military mission is exactly what he is trying to divert attention away from. What, then, is a beleaguered president to do?

Why, send Neil and Buzz to the Moon, of course!

Instead of wagging the dog, it's time to try something new: wagging the Moondoggie!
 
Nixon's actions from the very moment he takes office belie his campaign pledges to the American people (not unlike that Barry Obama guy, who also led the American people to believe that he opposed an unpopular war). In May of 1969, with Nixon just a few months into his term, the press begins publicizing the illegal B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia engineered by that irrepressible war criminal, Henry Kissinger. By June, Nixon is scrambling to announce what is dubbed the 'Vietnamization' of the war, which comes with a concomitant withdrawal of U.S. troops.
 
In truth, however, only 25,000 of the 540,000 U.S. troops then deployed will be brought home. This ruse is, therefore, transparently thin and it will buy the new president little time. To make matters worse, on July 14th, Francis Reitemeyer is granted Conscientious Objector status on the basis of a petition his attorney has filed which explicitly details the training and instruction he has just received in assassination and torture techniques in conjunction with his assignment to the CIA’s Phoenix Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program). With these documents entering the public domain, the full horrors of the war are beginning to emerge.
 
Just in time to save the day, however, Apollo 11 blasts off on July 16th on its allegedly historic mission, and – with the entire nation enthralled – four days later the Eagle purportedly makes its landing on the pristine lunar surface. Vietnam is temporarily forgotten as America swells with patriotic pride for having beaten the Evil Empire to the Moon. There is little time to worry about the brutality of war when Neil is taking that “one giant leap for mankind.”
 
The honeymoon is short-lived, however, for just four months later, in November of 1969, Seymour Hersch publishes a story about the massacre of 504 civilians in the village of My Lai, bringing home to America the full savagery of the war in Southeast Asia.

It's time then for another Moon launch, and Apollo 12 dutifully lifts off on November 14th, making another picture-perfect lunar landing before returning on November 24th. The country is once again entranced by the exploits of America's new breed of hero, and suddenly every kid in the country wants to grow up to be an astronaut.
 
All is well again until March of 1970, at which time a U.S.-backed coup deposes Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and Lon Nol is handpicked by the CIA to replace him. Cambodia then immediately jumps in the fray by committing troops to the U.S. war effort. The war is further escalated the next month when Nixon authorizes an invasion of Cambodia by U.S. and ARVN ground forces, another move engineered by Henry Kissinger. Nixon has been in office just over a year and the war, far from winding down, has now expanded into Cambodia both in the air and on the ground.
 
Meanwhile, it's time for yet another Moon launch. But this one is not going to be just any Moon launch. This one, you see, is going to introduce the element of danger. With the first two having gone off without a hitch, the American people – known for having notoriously short attention spans – are already adopting a 'been there, done that' attitude. The problem, in a nutshell, is that it looks just a little too damn easy. In order to regain the attention of the American people, it has to be impressed upon them that our brave astronauts are placing themselves in grave danger.
 
And so it is that on April 11th, 1970, Apollo 13 blasts off with Tom Hanks and a couple of somewhat lesser known actors on board, but unlike the first two missions, this Apollo spacecraft fails to reach the Moon and instead drifts about for the next six days with the crew in mortal danger of being forever lost in space! Now that gets our attention! So much so that when three Vietnam vets hold a multi-city press conference in New York, San Francisco and Rome on April 14th, attempting to publicize the ongoing Phoenix Program in which they have participated and have firsthand knowledge, nobody can really be bothered with paying much attention. It's hard to be too concerned about the fate of Vietnamese villagers, you see, when Tom and the boys are clearly in trouble.
 
Awaiting news of the fate of the Apollo 13 crew, we all have our eyes glued to our TVs as though we are watching postmortem coverage of Michael Jackson. When our heroes somehow make it back alive, defying seemingly impossible odds, we are all so goddamned proud of them that we decide to award Tom another Oscar. And all is well again for the remainder of the year.
 
I really have to repeat here, by the way, that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, America really did rock!

I mean, how about that Apollo safety record?

Seven manned Moon launches with seven perfect take-offs!

Tom and the boys obviously never did make it to the Moon, but the other six crews sure as hell did, and all six set those lunar modules down like the consummate professionals that they were, and all six used that untested technology to successfully blast off from the Moon and attain lunar orbit, and then all six successfully docked with the orbiting command modules. And all seven of those command modules, even Apollo 13’s, returned intact and with their crews happy and healthy.
 
That was just an awesome time to be an American and especially to be an American astronaut … well, except for the three guys (Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee) who were burned alive during a test procedure in the command module of what was to be the Apollo 1 rocket.

But they were troublemakers anyway who probably wouldn’t have wanted to go along with the Moon landing fable. And then there was that Thomas Baron (http://wiki.tfes.org/Thomas_Baron_Silenced_for_Attempting_to_Expose_the_Truth) guy who was a safety inspector for NASA and who delivered highly critical testimony and a 1,500-page report to Congress, only to then be killed a week later. That report seems to have been sucked into the same Black Hole (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/16_apollo-1-fire-murdered-astronauts-ENGL.html) that swallowed up all the other Apollo evidence.

Re: Thomas Baron
During the start of the Apollo missions, former NASA Safety Inspector Thomas Ronald Baron participated in a Congressional Hearing where he complained that NASA was not operating a real space program.

He complained about NASA's fraudulent practices, low quality control, and the practice of keeping every employee in the dark about the big picture. R. E. Reyes, an engineer in KSC's Preflight Operations Branch, said Baron filed so many negative charges against NASA that, had KSC heeded them all, NASA would not have had a man on the moon until the year 2069.

Baron testified before congress that the Apollo program was such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon. His claim and his opinions made him the target.

Baron's unpublished 500 page Congressional Report detailing the specific deficiencies of the Apollo program was never found.   :P
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 05:25:47 pm
Sorry...correction for the keyword folks(!)...

T.M. said that the "secret" NASA file was called.."SOLAR WARDEN".
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 05:38:27 pm
thorfourwinds...thanks for that.

.. and to be specific... I did not mean to say that the USA faked the moon landings. I'm saying, not what I think I know. I'm saying what I know.

 I am saying that America faked the photographic record of the moon landings.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 06, 2014, 05:40:56 pm
Solar Warden (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?56532-U.S.-Has-8-Cigar-Shaped-UFOs-In-Space-Fleet-Used-For---Solar-Warden----Program-To-Protect-Solar-System)

Because of its advanced technological position, the U.S. has been designated by Star Nations to a lead position in providing space security for Earth.

This space-security mission is two-fold.

One part of the Space Fleet's mission is to prevent rogue countries or terrorist groups from using space from which to conduct warfare against other countries or within-country targets. Star Nations has made it quite clear that space is to be used for peaceful purposes only.

The second part of the Space Fleet's mission is to prevent the global-elite control group, the Cabal, from using its orbital weapons systems, including directed-energy beam weapons, to intimidate or attack anyone or any group it wished to bend to its will.

Because the Space Fleet has the job of being Space Policeman within our solar system, its program has been named Solar Warden.

The Space Fleet operates not only with classified U.S. Government authority but also with the secret authority of the United Nations, because the Space Fleet's mission is to protect the entire Earth and all countries.

And the Solar Warden program operates under authorization by Star Nations, the organization of advanced intelligent civilizations in space.

The Solar Warden Space Fleet resulted from Star Nations' prompting of the leadership within the United Nations to take responsibility for law enforcement of near-space to prevent any Human mis-use of space.

Be clear that Star Nations has not given the U.S. Government [exclusive] authority to police the Earth. The U.S. has no authority from Star Nations to engage in any international policing activities. Star Nations has the policy position that the citizens of Earth have the responsibility to work out the operation and regulation of their societies as best they can.


The Nautilus is another space-faring craft, a secret military spacecraft which operates by magnetic pulsing. It operates out of the unacknowledged new headquarters of the U.S. Space Command, deep under a mountain in Utah. It makes twice-a-week trips up to the secret military-intelligence space station, which has been in deep space for the past thirty years, and manned by U.S. and USSR (now CIS) military astronauts. The Nautilus also is used for superfast surveillance operations, utilizing its ability to penetrate target country airspace from above from deep space, a direction not usually expected. It is manufactured jointly by Boeing's Phantom Works near Seattle and EU's Airbus Industries Anglo-French consortium.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 05:55:45 pm

The real value of moving past this moon stuff is to make a supposition that whatever was happening, it advanced the SECRET space agenda that has led to the current space advances..that are also secret!


Advanced is an understatement. This program would change the world and our views on space exploration and travel, so no wonder that it would be kept a big 'secret'. :)


Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 05:56:06 pm
zorgon...live long & prosper.
I also do want to know the truth & my own actions avoiding the "UFO GANG" & their Magical Mystery Tours from conference to conventions , podcasts to 'Broadcast Cable shows', demonstrates my feeling that this quest ,in the end, is personal...
&
 that it's can't be all about money, books & fame!!!... 

plus..I also can no longer seek or keep up with all the info you say you can no longer totally keep up with.  It do not matter! We have this site which is full of smart, informed folks, willing to do the work.

I believe in it..& this sites process of sharing things...& if the 'views from the outside' are up or down matters little to me.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 06, 2014, 06:04:14 pm
You all have rekindled my interest and now I will be going back to the livingmoon site and look again at the information to review what I have seen before.  I have stayed away long enough from the site.  Time to refresh myself.  Zorgon.....I work and I have off 2 days a week...I would be happy to help you with the living moon site.  I don't have the expertise in developing sites but the offer is there.   :) :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 06:07:04 pm
Sorry...correction for the keyword folks(!)...

T.M. said that the "secret" NASA file was called.."SOLAR WARDEN".

Is it the same program Gary McKinnon hacked from U.S. Space Command computers several years ago? When he learned of the existence of "non-terrestrial officers" and "fleet-to-fleet transfers" and a secret program called "Solar Warden"?

I remember he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed "the biggest military computer hack of all time".

What rings the bells why the extradition from UK and 70 years prision intimidations has gone nowhere. Think about  McKinnon in open court testifying those classified facts.How wonderfull would be government officers testifying under oath about the Navy's Space Fleet. 8)



Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 06:13:26 pm
thorfourwinds...You sure are amazing in the stones dept. cuz you are "closer to the truth" than others at this site might believe. I will have to think this out before I add my 'known knowns' cuz I have no cover..no alias..no avatar !

I find it almost impossible to believe that the general public is so 'out of it' on all this, in your face info. that is not hard to research?

It does matter..take the weather..it is being manipulated by these same players...& this matters (or should) to everybody..yet zero interest, despite the best efforts of so many.

(People still think it is normal for worlds 2 largest steel buildings to turn to dust in 10 seconds!)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Martyn Stubbs on November 06, 2014, 06:22:14 pm
RUSSO..OK, you named my facebook friend..so yes TM is GM as in Gary McKinnen..& yes he did hack NASA & he is amazing & an honest man..who lives in a wonderful country that he loves.. a country with compassion for it's people. Thus he remains free as a bird, as he should be.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 06:24:25 pm
(People still think it is normal for worlds 2 largest steel buildings to turn to dust in 10 seconds!)

Or in an era when we’ve all got GPS in our pockets, NSA tracking anyone, anywhere,  we see planes vanishing without trace. ::)

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 06:28:13 pm
Thus he remains free as a bird, as he should be.

No doubts about that...

Only pointing out what i see as a reason USA gov did not go further about the threats they did to G.M.

I wish he had a better internet conection at the time tho ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 06, 2014, 06:37:05 pm
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/earth_defense_force_LOGO.jpg)

How Project Moonshadow was developed (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3432.msg106177#msg106177)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 06:43:45 pm
Oh so your talking about the dope head who admittedly was so high he couldn't remember much except a couple of names on an Excell spreadsheet? Lol  ;) ::) ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 07:40:00 pm
Oh so your talking about the dope head who admittedly was so high he couldn't remember much except a couple of names on an Excell spreadsheet? Lol  ;) ::) ;D

I know nothing about dopes... just that:

Quote
It is claimed that between February 2001 and March 2002 Mr McKinnon hacked into dozens of US army, navy, air force, and Department of Defense computers, as well as 16 Nasa computers.]It is claimed that between February 2001 and March 2002 Mr McKinnon hacked into dozens of US army, navy, air force, and Department of Defense computers, as well as 16 Nasa computers.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19946902 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19946902)

...is not that bad for a "dope head"  :D

However i was not in his place so i cant say if truth or not. But i doubt USA would put their eyes, attention and effort if it meant nothing. Smoke? Possible fire you know :)

Also the iinformation matches with what was discovered about  US Naval Network and Space Operations Command (NNSOC) [formerly Naval Space Command].

I am not advocating, just think the information IS relevant as well as how the story developed to date. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 08:00:19 pm
oh i'm not advocating anything either...I just heard him say that he was so high all he could remember was a few names on an Excell spreadsheet. His words, not mine...lol

He may have indeed hacked all those mainframes with a 24 bit modem...but having a little experience with these mainframes and government computers, I find it highly, no pun intended, unlikely that he got very far in any of them.

now knowing how the intelligence community works and what bastards they can be, they damn sure were going to make an example of him by going after him so vigorously and by doing so had the unintended effect of making a star out of this guy and making him a cause celebrity in the conspiracy community...

the truth as always is somewhere in the middle....
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 08:36:27 pm
oh i'm not advocating anything either...I just heard him say that he was so high all he could remember was a few names on an Excell spreadsheet. His words, not mine...lol

He may have indeed hacked all those mainframes with a 24 bit modem...but having a little experience with these mainframes and government computers, I find it highly, no pun intended, unlikely that he got very far in any of them.

now knowing how the intelligence community works and what bastards they can be, they damn sure were going to make an example of him by going after him so vigorously and by doing so had the unintended effect of making a star out of this guy and making him a cause celebrity in the conspiracy community...

the truth as always is somewhere in the middle....

Also from that bbc link

Quote
In a BBC interview in 2005 he said: "I found out that the US military use Windows and having realised this, I assumed it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."

Using commercially available software, Mr McKinnon probed dozens of US military and government networks. He found many machines without adequate password or firewall protection. So he simply hacked into them, he said.

That was a well deserved "probe" if you think about how "amateurish" their security at the time sounds.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 09:01:05 pm
Well maybe his admission of being high and not remembering much was his attempt to cover his azz so as to take the heat off.

Maybe, just maybe he was this super hacker and he really did infiltrate US gov. Computers and discovered all that secret space stuff? Lol.

I just don't get too excited about hackers high or not. He broke US laws and they went after him. Mostly to make an example of him.

Pretty simple.  8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 09:14:39 pm
Maybe, just maybe he was this super hacker and he really did infiltrate US gov. Computers and discovered all that secret space stuff? Lol.

I dont think you need to be a super hacker to do what he did and dont think he discovered all the secrets the government has, but i did think he discovered relevant information because the lack of security in that network and i do think its lol funny he leaked such information we problably never would hear about or would have to wait some insider to come out with.

Quote
I just don't get too excited about hackers high or not. He broke US laws and they went after him. Mostly to make an example of him.

Pretty simple.  8)

It is not a matter to get excited about hackers breaking laws, its about being upset about all the secrecy and suppressed information we have to deal with. Or deal not better saying. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 06, 2014, 09:38:04 pm
I don't understand why people are so upset or alarmed at governments keeping secrets. That's what they do! It's not surprising to me at all that they would. I would expect it.

Now would I love for the government to come out and say yes John Lear is absolutely right and that Zorgon guy really has nailed it. But hey what fun would that be? ::)

 ;D This is more fun!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 06, 2014, 10:24:03 pm
I don't understand why people are so upset or alarmed at governments keeping secrets.

(http://i.imgur.com/maWrHsa.png)

Quote
Now would I love for the government to come out and say yes John Lear is absolutely right and that Zorgon guy really has nailed it. But hey what fun would that be? ::)

 ;D This is more fun!

Well... i have no statistics in it, but I really think people that seek for this kind of information is not looking for fun at all.

I dont.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sinny on November 06, 2014, 11:47:28 pm
I don't understand why people are so upset or alarmed at governments keeping secrets. That's what they do! It's not surprising to me at all that they would. I would expect it.

Now would I love for the government to come out and say yes John Lear is absolutely right and that Zorgon guy really has nailed it. But hey what fun would that be? ::)

 ;D This is more fun!

John Lear is right about what exactly? Holograhic planes,  military UFOs, Dulce or Soul Eaters? All of the above?

Government secrecy is morally primitive and has Lucifarian tendancies when left to foster in the dark (as do most things, that tends to be where evil dwells), we should do all we can to shine a light into the darkness and live in a 'free and open' society. Our fate rests on the two scanarios, although judging by the attitudes of those who have the influence to make change, it seems our fate is sealed.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 07, 2014, 03:08:11 am
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/1414781904486_wps_8_Virgin_Galactic_crash_DM__zps39556391.jpg)

On an outlandish conspiracy vibe, I was thinking the other day, what if the Virgin plane was intentionally sabotaged ? 8)
as a message to private space concerns to keepout of space.?

After all NASA does have the no-fly zones around the moon in place now!
Im probably totally wrong on this but it did cross my mind all the same.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 07, 2014, 03:19:41 am

On an outlandish conspiracy vibe, I was thinking the other day, what if the Virgin plane was intentionally sabotaged ? 8)
as a message to private space concerns to keepout of space.?

Why not? After all, we see this echoing in the opinions from mass media channels already:

Enough With Amateur-Hour Space Flight

Quote
it’s hard too not to be angry, even disgusted, with Branson himself. He is, as today’s tragedy shows, a man driven by too much hubris, too much hucksterism and too little knowledge of the head-crackingly complex business of engineering. For the 21st century billionaire, space travel is what buying a professional sports team was for the rich boys of an earlier era: the biggest, coolest, most impressive toy imaginable. Amazon.com zillionaire Jeff Bezos has his own spacecraft company—because what can better qualify a man to build machines able to travel to space than selling books, TVs and lawn furniture online? Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, has a space operation too because, well, spacecraft have computers and that’s sort of the same thing, right?

Quote
It’s Branson, however, who has always been the most troubling of the cosmic cowboys—selling not just himself on his fever dreams but his trusting customers. One of those would-be astronauts I met in the Mojave that day was a teenage girl, whose parents had put aside enough money to buy her the singular experience of a trip to space. They beamed at her courage as we spoke, and seemed thrilled about the ride she was soon to take. Those plans, presumably, are being rethought now.

http://time.com/3551643/virgin-crash-branson-amateur/ (http://time.com/3551643/virgin-crash-branson-amateur/)

 ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 07, 2014, 03:30:31 am


  " Enough With Amateur-Hour Space Flight "

  Thanks Russo...

   Hmmmmm!
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 03:58:08 am
How hard then would it really have been to fool most of you? I probably could have stuck a fish bowl on my head, wrapped myself in aluminum foil, and then filmed myself high-stepping across my backyard and most of you would have believed that I was Moonwalking. Some of you couldn't entirely rule out the possibility that everyone was walking on the Moon.

So that was YOU in THIS photo?

(http://www.ufowatchdog.com/images/lasergun1.jpg)
 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 04:04:20 am
T.M. said that the "secret" NASA file was called.."SOLAR WARDEN".

Solar Warden was what started Pegasus  a long time ago at ATS in a thread called the Winged Horses and the Spaceships

 8)
Solar Warden (and Shiva Nova) was what got Henry Deacon mad at me at Project Avalon and had him delete all my work there (He was pissed that I had the facts  8))

The Solar Warden fleet has those non terrestial officers that Gary McKinnon mentioned

On Stargate SG1 the Prometheus uses the REAL space command patches

Ah yes... good old Solar Warden   8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 04:12:03 am
the secret military-intelligence space station, which has been in deep space for the past thirty years, and manned by U.S. and USSR (now CIS) military astronauts.

Oh yes THAT one... The one I have the documents on as part TWO of that TEST of mine...

 ::)

I would really like to put everything I have in a neat chronological order, update it and add the new data from 21SOPS

But I am tired... I am burned out... and I have lost my muse...

sigh.....
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 04:30:34 am
Is it the same program Gary McKinnon hacked from U.S. Space Command computers several years ago? When he learned of the existence of "non-terrestrial officers" and "fleet-to-fleet transfers" and a secret program called "Solar Warden"?

Gary McKinnon is a bumbling fool who didn't even know enough to hit print screen or check his internet cache. Most of what he spoke about he got from UFO websites

NASA whom he hacked does NOT have the secret space corps info. Even the military computers that hold secret stuff are not on the internet but on SiPRNET JWICS and the Global

Yet Gary becomes a hero of sorts even though he had nothing.  He was a convenient distraction for the Feds Nothing more

You want names of non terrestrial officers? Look at our space command thread  :P  I have names of the Admirals in charge like THIS one that was linked to me at ATS (which some STUPID mod deleted. Fortunately I was on at the time and caught it

http://moneymaker.com/family/blueangl.htm

You don't need to hack to get the info... you just need to know where to look, who to ask and WHAT to ask for...

Like THIS

Initial identification of the cadre began in mid-2001 with the standup of the Naval Space Cadre Working Group and culminated in a naval message (NAVADMIN 201/03 DTG211435Z JUL 03) announcing the first 700 officer members of the cadre. These officers were identified by the subspecialty codes of 6206, Space Systems Operations, and 5500, Space Systems Engineering or by the additional qualification designator of VS1, VS2, VS3 or VS4. Identification of enlisted and civilian cadre members is more challenging, as these groups do not have specif?ic space identifiers like the officers do.

Approximately 265 billets are currently identified as space billets. These jobs are in Navy, joint and National Security Space organizations. Space cadre members are currently assigned throughout the National Security Space arena, including the National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Space Architect, National Security Space Integration, MILSATCOM Joint Program Office, as well as in all Navy organizations that deal with space.

Published in the AIr Force Magazine
High Frontier
The Journal for Space and Missile Professionals
Summer 2004

Quote
I remember he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed "the biggest military computer hack of all time".

Go listen to what he said in his first interview  We have it on the Moon... I REALLY HATE the glory this BOZZO gets for having done NOTHING

Your all falling into the BS trap same as the moon landings  :P

Quote
What rings the bells why the extradition from UK and 70 years prision intimidations has gone nowhere. Think about  McKinnon in open court testifying those classified facts.How wonderfull would be government officers testifying under oath about the Navy's Space Fleet. 8)

It went NOWHERE because they had NOTHING It was all smoke and mirrors

The Navy Space program is NOT secret  it just is not easy to find  ::)  Heck just watch Stargate SG1 and you will get more disclosure that anywhere else LOL

Like the BUDGET for space engineers being UNLIMITED  (we have those papers too)

But people would rather believe a buffoon like Gary (or Nassim Haramein with his fake alien Mayan stones on National Geographic) then any real research

In a large part THAT is exactly why I have lost my muse... I no longer see the point presenting 'the good stuff' when even staff here thinks Gary has any credibilty   :P

 ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 04:41:17 am
I find it almost impossible to believe that the general public is so 'out of it' on all this, in your face info. that is not hard to research?

Precisely.

I have found over the years that the very people who CLAIM to be seeking the truth, screaming for disclosure, are the very people who believe the wildest bullsh!t from the craziest charlatans...

but take the time to attempt to show them what is REALLY going on. they are blind and deaf and if what you say doesn't jive with their personal belief, they call YOU a disinfo agent for daring to bring the truth into the light

Howard Menger, Boyd Bushman, Ben Rich... all recently passed   ...all telling us the truth

but Greer and Haramein (both under the control of Dr Elizabeth Rauscher :P ) THEY get the center stage and the money.

I think I will go plant some daisies....
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 04:51:59 am
I wish he had a better internet conection at the time tho ;)

All computers can print screen :P 

All computers save what you see on the internet that day in the internet cache

As Gary said in his first interview... He was high and drugs are not good for the intellect  so he could not even remember ONE NAME on that list

Sorry Martyn,,, as you say he is a friend...  but I cannot buy that story

The whole thing smacks of a smoke screen to keep hackers away and keep Joe Public 'busy'

NASA has no secret stuff on their computers connected to the public internet and you cannot hack SiPRNET or JWICS without sitting at a .mil computer

If you could, serious hackers would already have done so and plastered the net with the good stuff

Maybe Gary saw THIS image of a space craft 

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kCGVVtiRjzo/maxresdefault.jpg)

That was on a lap top on the ISS  8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sinny on November 07, 2014, 04:59:05 am
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kCGVVtiRjzo/maxresdefault.jpg)

That was on a lap top on the ISS  8)

Link?

Besides that loving the info.. 
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 05:03:36 am
Link?

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

Quote
Besides that loving the info..

Old rehashed news :P

We call that 'wallpaper' these days.

So a NASA guy has a cool wallpaper on his computer and the UFO crowd goes nuts seeking meaning

 ::)

I have the original here somewhere...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 05:11:05 am
Here it is...

(http://www.podosinovets.ru/uploads/posts/2010-11/1289288304_1256288151__artfile_ru.jpg)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 07, 2014, 05:59:09 am
I tried last night Z, but I'm no where near filling your shoes, and you weren't on at the time. And I was trying to be nice. Shheesshhh! ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: RUSSO on November 07, 2014, 06:06:26 am
Gary McKinnon is a bumbling fool who didn't even know enough to hit print screen or check his internet cache. Most of what he spoke about he got from UFO websites

For a "hacker" this is very telling, i mean, amateur much?

Quote
NASA whom he hacked does NOT have the secret space corps info. Even the military computers that hold secret stuff are not on the internet but on SiPRNET JWICS and the Global

Yet Gary becomes a hero of sorts even though he had nothing.  He was a convenient distraction for the Feds Nothing more

This smells like a bait indeed.

Quote
You want names of non terrestrial officers? Look at our space command thread  :P  I have names of the Admirals in charge like THIS one that was linked to me at ATS (which some STUPID mod deleted. Fortunately I was on at the time and caught it

http://moneymaker.com/family/blueangl.htm

Surelly i will

Quote
You don't need to hack to get the info... you just need to know where to look, who to ask and WHAT to ask for...

Like THIS

But hacked information seems to be so much more glamorous  :P

Oh well... I blame all those hollywood movies from my adolescence ::)

Quote
Go listen to what he said in his first interview  We have it on the Moon... I REALLY HATE the glory this BOZZO gets for having done NOTHING

Well... I would not like to be remembered as a clown. So his glory will be ephemeral.

Quote
Your all falling into the BS trap same as the moon landings  :P

Not quite the effect i expect indeed. I think you know why ;)

Quote
It went NOWHERE because they had NOTHING It was all smoke and mirrors

Still would be nice to see people under oath speaking about it. Shoot in the foot is not what i would expect tho. They are better than that ::)

Quote
The Navy Space program is NOT secret  it just is not easy to find  ::)  Heck just watch Stargate SG1 and you will get more disclosure that anywhere else LOL

I was about to send you a pm to ask about it. Just got the Stargate SG-1 10 seasons. Will be a bussy weekend  :)

Quote
Like the BUDGET for space engineers being UNLIMITED  (we have those papers too)

Thats why some chairs they get cost 40 grant? :P

Quote
But people would rather believe a buffoon like Gary (or Nassim Haramein with his fake alien Mayan stones on National Geographic) then any real research

Television is a real powerfull tool. All those celebrities caring for him. How cute ;D

Quote
In a large part THAT is exactly why I have lost my muse... I no longer see the point presenting 'the good stuff' when even staff here thinks Gary has any credibilty   :P

Well... you know better than this Z.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sinny on November 07, 2014, 06:07:23 am
Howard Menger, Boyd Bushman, Ben Rich... all recently passed   ...all telling us the truth

Really now?  ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Elvis Hendrix on November 07, 2014, 07:11:02 am
 
  "There was a lack of reality about everything, a kind of euphoric strangeness to all
   [that] was going on."
-- Colonel Buz Aldrin


   Following his return to earth, Buzz Aldrin experienced an increasingly severe mental illness.
   A  sampling of quotes from his revealing book, [RETURN TO EARTH], provides a basis for analysis.


 
p 25 wrote:
We were to become public relations men for space exploration -- in a sense, salesmen. The word
made me terribly uncomfortable and self-conscious when it was first used.



p 68 wrote:
I felt all six of us were fakes and fools for allowing ourselves to be convinced by some strange concept of duty to be sent...


p 295 wrote:
Should anyone discover I was in the hospital (for nervous problems) the explanation was to be that I was being treated for a neck problem. The other problem, if at all possible, was to be kept secret.


p 317 wrote:
My life is unreal...


p 320 wrote:
I was incredulous...she had really believed all that crap she had read about me - about her - about all of us? Suddenly, all my life...became tinged with a crazy unreality.


The first question that Roy Neal asked me was, 'Now that almost two years have gone by, why not tell us how it really felt to be on the moon?'




If any one question was anathema to me, that was it. Roy, I suppose, felt he had no choice. Yet it has always been almost impossible for me to answer that question with any sort of decent response.




My throat went dry and I became dizzy. Carefully I picked my way through a reply, thinking that all the test pilots in the audience would burst out in laughter.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: petrus4 on November 07, 2014, 01:47:39 pm
Here it is...

(http://www.podosinovets.ru/uploads/posts/2010-11/1289288304_1256288151__artfile_ru.jpg)

Why would extraterrestrials fly in untextured spacecraft? ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 07, 2014, 01:52:43 pm
Should one be interested…
moved (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3432.msg106244;topicseen#new) so as not to derail thread…



(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/the-secret-space-program1.jpg)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 07, 2014, 02:55:43 pm
Hi ArMap,

ArMap
Quote
What made you think I suggested one was weightless on the moon ?
I didn't think that, why are you saying it?

Re.
ArMap
Quote
Neither of those have the same difference in pressure between the suits and the exterior, unless the aircraft had a vacuum chamber,
but even then weightlessness is not the same thing as the gravity at the Moon's surface.

I apologize ...   :(

I misread your answer at the time, while was rushing to go out.   :(

Sorry about that misunderstanding on my part.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 07, 2014, 03:08:09 pm
I misread your answer at the time, while was rushing to go out.   :(

Sorry about that misunderstanding on my part.
No problems. :)

That's why I avoid posting during my lunch break. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 07, 2014, 03:19:45 pm
What is going on in your sky's is far more complex than those on Earth Imagine.

Martin and Z are onto part  of the Story and there is another areas as well.

Sadly all of which get confused with each other.

The technologies of which are much different. But to separate these differences is no easy task.

It is so ^%$$&*^ Complex, is one of the reasons for 'Non Disclosure".

There is human tech. (kept secret as a result of human Paranoia)
There is misleading cooperation between the human species and other Species.
There's a hybrid breeding program going on, which extends back 6,000 years or more.
There's Individual contact with others taking place.
There's random contact.
There's Another area involving the Development of our Individual Processing System (Non Material)
There's WAR taking place between 'Species' even recorded in ancient writings.
There is  inter-dimensional behaviour taking place.
And there are those 'Critters'....

And the list goes on and on and on and on..............

Did we go to the moon through mechanically 'Farting' ? (Rocket tech.)

I don't think so.


Has the human species been to the moon ?

I will leave this up to those who are in the Know.


Has the 'human Primate' been beyond the Moon ?

YES.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 07, 2014, 04:48:27 pm
What is going on in your sky's is far more complex than those on Earth Imagine.
Is your sky different? ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 07, 2014, 05:09:34 pm
Really now?  ???

Yup but if you don't believe them...  why are you even looking?

 ::)
Ben told us we already have the tech to take ET home. The whole point of Pegasus is to show this tech as well as we can within the confines of National Security. There are thousands of official documents all the way up to bordering on stilll classified  I have over 6,000 in my library alone. 

I also was sent a sketch of a working space drive for 'safe keeping' that I still cannot release without getting a knock at the door

So yeah those three are telling you the truth. Boyd even showed us gravity experiments as proof on YT 

But hey....  we can speculate forever and not waste time following the trail of facts

Here... have a Mayan Alien Stone  from Klaus Donner and Nassim Haramein... never mind that they cannot tell you where the dig site is...  never mind that they don't even look Mayan...  I think I recall back on ATS that Klaus was selling some at about $75K a pop. Maybe ArMaP can find that   8)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oMQFLuwMilc/T5jC7tbV9PI/AAAAAAAAEQs/szYwnH_pTYU/s1600/UFO,+UFOs,+Aztlan,+ovni,+en,+piedra,+omni,+sighting,+sightings,+ancient,+mayan,+aztec,+stone,+carvings,+alien,+aliens,+ET,+evidence,+proof,+april,+2012Screen+Shot+2012-04-26+at+11.29.00+AM.png)

I mean they have to be the real deal  because National Geographic gave Nassim the air time  and we all know National Geographic only brings us truth

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 07, 2014, 05:57:45 pm
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo11EastCrater_panorama-640.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo11EastCrater_panorama.jpg)

Calling the Shadow Expert…what about it, ArMaP?

Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ;)]

Does this photo suggest two light sources?

Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.    ;D

Enquiring minds want to know   :P

Thanking you in advance,

With great respect,

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)

tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 07, 2014, 06:26:08 pm
Calling the Shadow Expert…what about it, ArMaP?
I'm not an expert.

Quote
Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ;)]
I think it does.

Quote
Does this photo suggest two light sources?
First of all, I don't think that's a photo but a mosaic of at least two or three different photos. And no, it doesn't suggest two lights, as two light would create two shadows for every object.

Quote
Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.    ;D
The fact that we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there, don't let your perception fool you. :)
But no, stars would no give enough light to be noticeable.

Quote
Enquiring minds want to know   :P
Now they know. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 07, 2014, 06:56:59 pm
Is your sky different? ???

NO.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on November 14, 2014, 01:25:04 am
Putting it simply, we don't have the technology to go into space at the current time; and strapping people to what is essentially a giant firecracker is guaranteed to get at least several of them killed.

Are you sure we don't? It would be more accurate to say we don't have publicly visible technology to go into space at the current time.

The true state of science and technology on this world is at a level that far exceeds what's perceived by the public.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on November 14, 2014, 01:29:05 am
But it works. :)
It works where? In a dense atmosphere, yes. In a vacuum, I'd say no. I don't see how they could have done it with the technology they claim they used--and I'm just referring to propulsion. There are other problems they would have had to address.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 14, 2014, 02:23:09 am
It works where? In a dense atmosphere, yes. In a vacuum, I'd say no.
Why do you say "no"?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on November 14, 2014, 04:26:20 pm
Why do you say "no"?

Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work. It's standard scientific stuff one can look up and there are a number of published experiments going back to the 1800s that prove this.

I'll concede they *might* be able to get their rocket engines to ignite in the vacuum of space but they will produce no thrust, i.e., the rocket won't move. I think you'd just see a huge expanding cloud of exhaust shooting for miles in every direction. There's more to be said about this but as far as what one would see of a rocket engine in space, I think that's about it.

I'm convinced they'd have to use antigravity/electrodyne or other classified technology to move around up there. I think an inertial drive system like the Cubli could, in principle (in practice is another matter) propel something in a zero-G vacuum environment but I don't think it could propel an object at a high enough speed to get to another planet in a reasonable amount of time.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Ellirium113 on November 14, 2014, 04:32:57 pm
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo11EastCrater_panorama-640.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Apollo11EastCrater_panorama.jpg)

Calling the Shadow Expert…what about it, ArMaP?

Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ;)]

Does this photo suggest two light sources?

Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.    ;D

Enquiring minds want to know   :P

Thanking you in advance,

With great respect,

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)

tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

This is quite the photoshop job on this picture... notice as you look in the crater all the cross hatch patterns are off alignment and if you look really close you can see a straight line where an image was pasted in. Hard to make a call on light sourcing on a manufactured photo. heck in the dark part of the crater you can even see a 90 degree light area from a cropped picture.   ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 14, 2014, 04:41:59 pm
Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work.
I don't remember ever reading about that principle, but I have one question: what do you mean by "do no work"? ???

Quote
It's standard scientific stuff one can look up and there are a number of published experiments going back to the 1800s that prove this.
I will look. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 14, 2014, 04:44:03 pm
This is quite the photoshop job on this picture... notice as you look in the crater all the cross hatch patterns are off alignment and if you look really close you can see a straight line where an image was pasted in.
Yes, panoramas are (unless you use a special lens) made by joining several photos, and even when the photographer has lots of practice doing it, taking several photos without a tripod will result in photos that are not aligned.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 14, 2014, 04:48:24 pm
Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work.
From what I could see in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion), and although that's a subject I do not really know, I don't think you can compare the free expansion of a gas to the expansion resulting from the a chemical reaction like mixing hydrogen with oxygen.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Ellirium113 on November 14, 2014, 05:18:58 pm
Yes, panoramas are (unless you use a special lens) made by joining several photos, and even when the photographer has lots of practice doing it, taking several photos without a tripod will result in photos that are not aligned.

 :P Thought I was being observant there for a moment.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 14, 2014, 06:17:16 pm
A rocket engine is basically another form of 'Thermal Converter'

But works a little different than piston engines and turbine engines, working on this principle
and do not need to push against anything other than their exhaust cones.

They work on the principle of ejecting mass at high velocities.

But you can't cross Galaxies in minutes though the application of a mechanical Fart !   :)

Still this is the principle of their operation...



(http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/rocket1.gif)

Quote
­Wh­en most people think about motors or engines, they think about rotation. For example,
a reciprocating gasoline engine in a car produces rotational energy to drive the wheels.

An electric motor produces rotational energy to drive a fan or spin a disk. A steam engine is used
to do the same thing, as is a steam turbine and most gas turbines.

Rocket engines are fundamentally different. Rocket engines are reaction engines.

The basic principle driving a rocket engine is the famous Newtonian principle that "to every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction." A rocket engine is throwing mass in one direction
and benefiting from the reaction that occurs in the other direction as a result.

This concept of "throwing mass and benefiting from the reaction" can be hard to grasp at first,
because that does not seem to be what is happening.

Rocket engines seem to be about flames and noise and pressure, not "throwing things."

But this does NOT mean the human Primate, used such 'Tech' to get to the Moon.

Perhaps they had a little help from their friends ?   :)



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkyqRP8S93Y[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkyqRP8S93Y


Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 14, 2014, 09:48:50 pm
But you can't cross Galaxies in minutes though the application of a mechanical Fart !   :)

Oh but you CAN...  That is the one thing people forget.

IF you can Warp Space so that Point A (where you are now) and Point B (where you want to be at the opposite end of the galaxy) a simple FART is all you need to cover that distance in an instant

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Wormhole_002.png)

Now I would assume that you would need a lot of electricity to power those gravity generators to jump that far (Which is why Star Trek still requires time to get around... they do it in smaller hops) But still... simply fold space to a point where Point A and Point be are 'touching' in the next dimension and you can literally step through

Quote
Still this is the principle of their operation...

You can easily do this at home...  buy a small toy rocket... get a vacuum cleaner to suck out almost all the air in a container and ignite the toy rocket. I guarantee it will work   8)

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 14, 2014, 10:07:04 pm
Heck who needs a ROCKET?  Just a little hand held remote  and jump in

(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/288/1/2/Friend_and_Vortex_by_Nocturnal_Abyss.jpg)

[youtube]2zec3IxcL_I[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zec3IxcL_I
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on November 14, 2014, 10:25:30 pm
Quote
Just a little hand held remote  and jump in

I loved that show....  ;)

I missed the end of it to know how the series closed tho... I ought to go see about buying it one of these days.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 14, 2014, 11:39:42 pm
Oh but you CAN...  That is the one thing people forget.

IF you can Warp Space so that Point A (where you are now) and Point B (where you want to be at the opposite end of the galaxy) a simple FART is all you need to cover that distance in an instant

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Wormhole_002.png)

Now I would assume that you would need a lot of electricity to power those gravity generators to jump that far (Which is why Star Trek still requires time to get around... they do it in smaller hops) But still... simply fold space to a point where Point A and Point be are 'touching' in the next dimension and you can literally step through

You can easily do this at home...  buy a small toy rocket... get a vacuum cleaner to suck out almost all the air in a container and ignite the toy rocket. I guarantee it will work   8)
But you don't need a rocket and you don't need electricity ....  :)

Or any 'brute force' for that matter.

It's far simpler than that ....  :)

Somma will know about this.

Just involves a little 'Dialogue' through a 'Video Interface'.

You may find some of the ancients used mechanical devices which were hand held and had a small 'hand crank'
was used to provide the Strobe function which Rotate a piece of Polaroid glass over a static piece.

Poor quality glass with a polarised grain will do this.

Just need some Light passing through it (often just sunlight.   :) )

The rest was done by a Geometric based Dialogue, with a little script within the same little box
with the Strobe.

Very mechanical based Optical Computers.  :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 14, 2014, 11:42:57 pm
Heck who needs a ROCKET?  Just a little hand held remote  and jump in

(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/288/1/2/Friend_and_Vortex_by_Nocturnal_Abyss.jpg)


Now you are talking .... You just may be closer to it than you can imagine ...   :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 15, 2014, 07:10:27 am
Oh but you CAN...  That is the one thing people forget.

IF you can Warp Space so that Point A (where you are now) and Point B (where you want to be at the opposite end of the galaxy) a simple FART is all you need to cover that distance in an instant

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Wormhole_002.png)

Now I would assume that you would need a lot of electricity to power those gravity generators to jump that far (Which is why Star Trek still requires time to get around... they do it in smaller hops) But still... simply fold space to a point where Point A and Point be are 'touching' in the next dimension and you can literally step through

You can easily do this at home...  buy a small toy rocket... get a vacuum cleaner to suck out almost all the air in a container and ignite the toy rocket. I guarantee it will work   8)

But what if you dial up the wrong dimension by mistake?
you might end up somewhere you don't want to be?

(http://i1254.photobucket.com/albums/hh618/johntfountain/eh-1_zpsc29d2371.jpg) (http://s1254.photobucket.com/user/johntfountain/media/eh-1_zpsc29d2371.jpg.html)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 15, 2014, 12:27:38 pm
But what if you dial up the wrong dimension by mistake?
you might end up somewhere you don't want to be?

THAT is why you have Army Grunts...  they go first to check it out and report back   :P


[youtube]DtTgHuGgW-c[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtTgHuGgW-c
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Glaucon on November 15, 2014, 02:16:19 pm
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 15, 2014, 02:29:08 pm
THAT is why you have Army Grunts...  they go first to check it out and report back   :P


[youtube]DtTgHuGgW-c[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtTgHuGgW-c

Now that is Intelligent ....

Check out what's lurking at the 'target Location' 1st !   :o

Very, Very Wise.  :)

There's More to SG1 than perhaps others realise.   :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on November 15, 2014, 05:39:21 pm
:P Thought I was being observant there for a moment.

Greetings:

Perhaps better to be an 'observant' than to be an 'obfuscator'    :P

Happy Thanksgivings

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif)

tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on November 16, 2014, 01:04:32 pm
From what I could see in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_expansion), and although that's a subject I do not really know, I don't think you can compare the free expansion of a gas to the expansion resulting from the a chemical reaction like mixing hydrogen with oxygen.
A chemical reaction producing gas IS an expansion of gas.  :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 01:48:27 pm
2 'Components' are required in a 'thermal converter' such as in a 'Internal combustion Engine'.

A Fuel & Oxygen to provide the heat source (Oxidisation of the fuel, a chemical reaction = Heat.)

The Other Component .... an inert gas which expands after being heat by the oxidising fuel.

The expanding gas acts on the inner walls of the Exhaust Cone.

Quote
'For every action, there is an opposite and Equal reaction'.

IF ONLY Fuel and Oxygen is used It won't Work !   :)

The Inert Gas is required for EXPANSION to take place.


That's right the rocket is 'Farting' !

About the level of Tech. reached through the human Species.    :)


A little help from our friends, would be a more successful way of reaching the moon, using a little better Tech.
than by creating a large 'Fart'.   ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 16, 2014, 01:51:59 pm
A chemical reaction producing gas IS an expansion of gas.  :)
If it's producing then it's not a specific amount of gas expanding, and I think that's what that "free expansion" principle is about, the expansion of a specific amount of gas into a bigger volume than the one it was occupying before.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 16, 2014, 01:54:27 pm
The Other Component .... an inert gas which expands after being heat by the oxidising fuel.
Does that mean that a rocket with oxygen and hydrogen doesn't work in a vacuum?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 01:57:40 pm
(http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/288/1/2/Friend_and_Vortex_by_Nocturnal_Abyss.jpg)


By accessing the Program 'Stack' involving our experience, and inserting a 'branch' instruction.    :)


Branch: (computer science)

A branch is an instruction in a computer program that may, when executed by a computer,
cause the computer to begin execution of a different instruction sequence.

Branch (or branching, branched) may also refer to the act of beginning execution of a different
instruction sequence due to executing a branch instruction. A branch instruction can be either
an unconditional branch, which always results in branching, or a conditional branch, which may
or may not cause branching depending on some condition.

Quote
When executing (or "running") a program, a computer will fetch and execute instructions
in sequence (in their order of appearance in the program) until it encounters a branch instruction.

If the instruction is an unconditional branch, or it is conditional and the condition is satisfied,
the computer will branch (fetch its next instruction from a different instruction sequence)
as specified by the branch instruction. However, if the branch instruction is conditional
and the condition is not satisfied, the computer will not branch; instead, it will continue executing
the current instruction sequence, beginning with the instruction that follows the conditional branch instruction.

A little more 'Technical approach' than 'Farting'...   ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on November 16, 2014, 02:40:13 pm
A rocket engine is basically another form of 'Thermal Converter'

But works a little different than piston engines and turbine engines, working on this principle
and do not need to push against anything other than their exhaust cones.

They work on the principle of ejecting mass at high velocities.

But you can't cross Galaxies in minutes though the application of a mechanical Fart !   :)

Still this is the principle of their operation...



(http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/rocket1.gif)

But this does NOT mean the human Primate, used such 'Tech' to get to the Moon.

Perhaps they had a little help from their friends ?   :)


I think the rocket graphic is partially correct. I think it's more accurate to say the rocket is pushed away from its exhaust cone IF the exhaust in turn has something to "push" against, e.g., a dense atmosphere, immovable solid (wall), etc. Rockets don't push against themselves, so to speak. Also, the exhaust isn't ejected; it merely expands out. Newton's Third Law applies just fine to solid objects but gases are a funny thing.

For example, a bullet is ejected from a gun by the force of the expanding gases within the chamber, with the body of the gun pushed in the opposite direction (recoil). The gas acts upon--ejects--the bullet and the remaining gas in the chamber continues to expand out of the gun barrel after the bullet has been ejected from the barrel, but the gas isn't itself ejected.

A rocket engine is akin to a gun barrel w/o the bullet. The gases formed from the chemical reaction of the rocket propellant chemicals are not ejected out the nose cone because something else isn't acting upon them to push them out, like a bullet from a gun.

The exhaust molecules merely expand out. This expansion is the force; the exhaust is not acted upon. As far as I can see, rockets need a medium to propel through.

I think an analogy would be a dolphin moving its flukes to propel itself through water. The Third Law applies well here re the movement of the flukes against the water. However, if the dolphin propels itself out of the water into the air it can wave its flukes all it wants but it won't propel itself through the air. Yes, I know the atmosphere is a medium. However, even if Earth's atmosphere above the water were somehow suddenly switched to a zero-G environment it still wouldn't be dense enough for the dolphin to propel itself; its "fluke engine" isn't designed for this.

I think the dolphin can no more propel itself in such an environment any more than a rocket in space can propel itself merely by blowing exhaust gases out the nose cone. Their actions both need something external to react (move) against, at which point the Third Law of Motion kicks in. That is to say a rocket (or dolphin) moving is an indirect reaction; the direct (real) reaction here is the resistance encountered when molecules of dense rocket exhaust are blown against reasonably dense molecules comprising the atmosphere (or flukes moving against a sufficiently dense medium like water). In the case of the rocket the exhaust expands out at such speed and volume that the surrounding atmosphere cannot absorb the exhaust fast enough. Thus we have a situation akin to a gun being fired: rocket exhuast as the gun powder gasses expanding in a confined area, rocket body as the gun recoiling, and the dense atmosphere on the other end as the bullet providing sufficient impediment to the flow of expanding gasses.

Perhaps a better analogy is a propeller engine on an airplane or boat in water. The plane/boat moving when the propellers are spinning is an indirect reaction and only happens when the direct reaction takes place: air/water molecules encountering resistance when pushed against other air/water molecules of sufficient density.

A plane or boat with a running propeller engine will not move in the vacuum of space and I think for the same reasons neither will a rocket in the same environment.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 16, 2014, 02:54:26 pm
A plane or boat with a running propeller engine will not move in the vacuum of space and I think for the same reasons neither will a rocket in the same environment.

Really? A rocket won't work in the vacuum of space?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 16, 2014, 03:13:57 pm
A question: if rockets don't work in a vacuum, shouldn't they get slower and slower while getting higher and higher in the atmosphere, as the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 16, 2014, 03:30:13 pm
You know...I never thought of that....however if you have a chamber closed at one end and you have a force coming out of that chamber then basically the force is against the closed portion of the chamber...right?  The pressure has to go somewhere and from that force you have movement.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 03:34:01 pm
Does that mean that a rocket with oxygen and hydrogen doesn't work in a vacuum?

Correct !

Thermal Converters which a Rocket Engine is requires ...

1.    Fuel
2.    An Oxidiser
3.    An Inert gas to heat, (the expansion Component)

It is the Expanding Inert Gas which expands due to being heated by the heat source (Chemical reaction)
Which acts on the Inner Walls of Exhaust Cone pushing the rocket away from the material (Gas) being expelled
out its rear.

IF ONLY Oxygen and Hydrogen is used in a Internal Combustion engine without the Nitrogen (present in the air)
It will NOT Work !


So can a Rocket engine operate in Space ?

YES

(IF the 3 Components are used, or just One expanding gas, not involving heat)

But hell ... its a very, very, very, inefficient system probably in the area of Steam and probably about 2.5% efficient !

So is it realistic ?

Hell NO.

A total waste of Time and tax payers $$$$'s.

Hardly suitable to attempt going to the moon.... let alone crossing Galaxies in Minutes.  LOL.


I think you will find Z is more on track, and perhaps the human species is in some form of very limited
activity involving others, other than the NASA.


And there is other involvement, which has nothing at all to do with Gov. or any other agencies on Earth,
involving something unimaginable to most in the Earth Program.   :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 03:39:48 pm
Quote
Perhaps a better analogy is a propeller engine on an airplane or boat in water. The plane/boat moving when the propellers are spinning is an indirect reaction and only happens when the direct reaction takes place: air/water molecules encountering resistance when pushed against other air/water molecules of sufficient density.

Propellers are just one form of 'Pump' !
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 03:46:53 pm
Monkey 'Tech.' is like ....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5maly_KVc[/youtube]

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 16, 2014, 04:34:00 pm
IF ONLY Oxygen and Hydrogen is used in a Internal Combustion engine without the Nitrogen (present in the air)
It will NOT Work !
What if the rocket is inside water, what happens?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 05:33:43 pm
What if the rocket is inside water, what happens?

Your guess is as good as mine ....   :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 16, 2014, 05:57:20 pm
Your guess is as good as mine ....   :)
Does that mean that all your previous talk was also a guess?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 16, 2014, 07:13:04 pm
Does that mean that all your previous talk was also a guess?

Why do you read things into comments which are NOT there ?

Just askin.  :)

It appears you tend to overcomplicate/over engineer things.

IF I was guessing.... I would have said so ...  :) (re. my previous statements and. 'Thermal Converters')
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 01:55:15 am
Why do you read things into comments which are NOT there ?
I don't, that's why I ask. :)

Quote
IF I was guessing.... I would have said so ...  :) (re. my previous statements and. 'Thermal Converters')
I asked because I find it a little strange that you would know that and not know what would happen inside water, because, to me, it looks like if you know the theory aren't you supposed to know how that would apply in a slightly different situation?

The only thing I know about thermal converters and things like that is that I know nothing of the theories behind them. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 17, 2014, 04:35:16 am
I might know a little wee bit about 'Thermal Converters'.

My business involved Professional engine design, along with the Development and Manufacture
of Automotive Computer Systems during the 1980's and 90's. One of the early Pioneers.  :)

Also had acquaintances, involved with model jet and rocket engines, who sort advice from me on odd occasions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant
Quote
Rocket propellant is a material used by a rocket as, or to produce in a chemical reaction,
the reaction mass (propulsive mass) that is ejected, typically with very high speed, from a rocket engine
to produce thrust, and thus provide spacecraft propulsion.

A chemical rocket propellants undergo exothermic chemical reactions to produce hot gas.

There may be a single propellant, or multiple propellants; in the latter case one can distinguish fuel
and oxidizer.

The gases produced expand and push on a nozzle, which accelerates them until they rush out of the back
of the rocket at extremely high speed. For smaller attitude control thrusters, a compressed gas escapes
the spacecraft through a propelling nozzle.

Another solid fuel used is C6H6N6(NO2)6 (Note the content of Nitrogen !)

Nitrogen does NOT Oxidise easily !

Nitrogen oxides refers specifically to NOx (NO and NO2).

Quote
Nitrogen dioxide is the chemical compound with the formula NO2.
It is one of several nitrogen oxides. NO2 is an intermediate in the industrial synthesis of nitric acid,
millions of tons of which are produced each year.
This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odor and is a prominent air pollutant. Nitrogen dioxide is a paramagnetic, bent molecule with C2v point group symmetry.

Quote
Oxygen and nitrogen do not react at ambient temperatures. But at high temperatures,
they undergo an endothermic reaction producing various oxides of nitrogen.
Such temperatures arise inside an internal combustion engine or a power station boiler,
during the combustion of a mixture of air and fuel, and naturally in a lightning flash.

Nitrogen Oxide in the exhaust from an internal combustion engine is detected in Parts/Billion
as it is NOT easy to oxidise Nitrogen !

It is the Nitrogen in a Thermal converter such as a Jet Engine or Automotive internal combustion Engine
that does the expansion.

If only Oxygen and Hydrogen is used without any other gasses an Implosion takes place instead of Expansion.   :)

No guess work here .... I have give lectures on Internal Combustion Engines ('Thermal Converters') to those
in the Automotive Industry including Engine designers.   :)



http://www.webqc.org/molecular-weight-of-C6H6N6(NO2)6.html

Formula in Hill system is C6H6N12O12
Elemental composition of C6H6N6(NO2)6:

C    Carbon  16.4461 %

H    Hydrogen  1.3802 %

N    Nitrogen  38.3583 %

O   Oxygen  43.8155 %


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/Solid_Rocket_Fuel.png)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 06:47:29 am
I might know a little wee bit about 'Thermal Converters'.
I know, but in this case I'm only interested in rocket engines. :)

I forgot to ask, what happens when a rocket reaches high altitudes, with much less nitrogen (or whatever), shouldn't the rocket accelerate less and less?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on November 17, 2014, 11:51:58 am
If Rockets do not work in space...

...how do they get back down from orbit?


If rockets do not work in space...

...then there are NO ANOMALIES in the Moon and Mars photos...

...because they could not have taken those photos on the Moon or Mars

 8)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 17, 2014, 01:28:47 pm
I know, but in this case I'm only interested in rocket engines. :)

I forgot to ask, what happens when a rocket reaches high altitudes, with much less nitrogen (or whatever), shouldn't the rocket accelerate less and less?

 ???

A Rocket engine is a 'Thermal Converter' !   ::)

The Nitrogen is IN the FUEL !   ::)

Example in Solid Fuel ......    C6H6N6(NO2)6



Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 01:39:44 pm
If Rockets do not work in space...

...how do they get back down from orbit?


If rockets do not work in space...

...then there are NO ANOMALIES in the Moon and Mars photos...

...because they could not have taken those photos on the Moon or Mars

 8)

Touche'....good one "Z"......
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 01:41:50 pm
If you can disprove a "positive" can you prove a negative?  I had that question offered to me at one time...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 17, 2014, 02:04:32 pm
Hi spacemaverick ,

I believe you may be more informed about Solid rocket fuels than myself i.e. Missiles etc.   :)

ArMap seems to be having some difficulty in understanding Rocket Engines.   :(

Can you explain the 'theory' to him please.   8)

Many thanks.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 02:20:41 pm
A Rocket engine is a 'Thermal Converter' !   ::)
I know, but when I said "only interested" I meant that I see talking about jet and automobile engines as irrelevant, as they do not work in the same way.

Quote
The Nitrogen is IN the FUEL !   ::)

Example in Solid Fuel ......    C6H6N6(NO2)6
Not if the fuel is hydrogen, and that's what I was talking about.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 17, 2014, 03:13:22 pm
Quote
Not if the fuel is hydrogen, and that's what I was talking about.

Oh but it isn't !

Hydrogen is only ONE 'Component', of the Make up of WHAT propels a human designed Space vehicle.

Hydrogen is ONE of the Components of the 'Heat Source' ONLY !   ::)

The other Component of the 'Heat Source' is the Oxidiser !   ::)

Another 'Component' is The 'Expansion Media', (Gas)    the Heat Source i.e. Hydrogen and Oxidiser Heat
through their Chemical interaction. (Burning)


Look at the Compound C6H6N6(NO2)6 (Solid Rocket Fuel) see it has Hydrogen, Carbon and Nitrogen ...   8)


Liquid based Rocket fuels also contain their Expansion Media within the recipe ....   :)

It's a huge area of 'Chemistry' and Thermal Dynamics ...

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 03:34:41 pm
Hi spacemaverick ,

I believe you may be more informed about Solid rocket fuels than myself i.e. Missiles etc.   :)

ArMap seems to be having some difficulty in understanding Rocket Engines.   :(

Can you explain the 'theory' to him please.   8)

Many thanks.

I have no background in rockets or chemistry.  The only background I have is in munitions which includes missiles (just checking out the systems and that is all.  High school science should do the trick though.  I will attempt to find the information in video form which may help explain.  All I know is that propellants be they solid or liquid have all the appropriate chemicals contained in the propellant to do the job.  In the case of a rocket/missile fired from a submarine...the tube is filled with air which propels the missile out of the tube into the air and then the propellant is ignited above the water after the rocket has been turned sideways at an angle.   The exiting thermal energy from the rocket motor pushes against the rocket motor casing which in turn causes the rocket to move.

Now take the small handheld instrument the astronauts used to move around during Gemini which did not have flammable propellant but merely a non-flammable gas contained there-in.  As the gas was released by the astronaut from the unit it would push the astronaut to where he wanted to go in the opposite direction of where it was pointed.  Nothing thermal about that.

Like I said...I will find a video to explain it better.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 03:53:49 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt5dcrm8X1w[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt5dcrm8X1w

Here you go...the basics...
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 04:06:17 pm
Submarine launch of rocket....motor ignited after just leaving the water...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOaBnlT2E[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOaBnlT2E

This is a cruise missile launch:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDHtdsW1Ftw[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDHtdsW1Ftw
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 05:10:23 pm
Oh but it isn't !
On what I'm talking about it is, as I asked about an oxygen+hydrogen rocket, not about any other oxidizer+fuel.

Or is it not possible to make an oxygen+hydrogen rocket?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 05:34:23 pm
Beyond my knowledge level ArMap....
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 05:37:35 pm
Beyond my knowledge level ArMap....
Thanks anyway. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 05:39:47 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html

From NASA

Despite criticism and early technical failures, the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical accomplishments. . . . Hydrogen -- a light and extremely powerful rocket propellant -- has the lowest molecular weight of any known substance and burns with extreme intensity (5,500°F). In combination with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant.

Because liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are both cryogenic -- gases that can be liquefied only at extremely low temperatures -- they pose enormous technical challenges. Liquid hydrogen must be stored at minus 423°F and handled with extreme care. To keep it from evaporating or boiling off, rockets fuelled with liquid hydrogen must be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, such as rocket engine exhaust and air friction during flight through the atmosphere. Once the vehicle reaches space, it must be protected from the radiant heat of the Sun. When liquid hydrogen absorbs heat, it expands rapidly; thus, venting is necessary to prevent the tank from exploding. Metals exposed to the extreme cold of liquid hydrogen become brittle. Moreover, liquid hydrogen can leak through minute pores in welded seams. Solving all these problems required an enormous amount of technical expertise in rocket and aircraft fuels cultivated over a decade by researchers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland.

Today, liquid hydrogen is the signature fuel of the American space program and is used by other countries in the business of launching satellites. In addition to the Atlas, Boeing's Delta III and Delta IV now have liquid-oxygen/liquid-hydrogen upper stages. This propellant combination is also burned in the main engine of the Space Shuttle. One of the significant challenges for the European Space Agency was to develop a liquid-hydrogen stage for the Ariane rocket in the 1970s. The Soviet Union did not even test a liquid-hydrogen upper stage until the mid-1980s. The Russians are now designing their Angara launch vehicle family with liquid-hydrogen upper stages. Lack of Soviet liquid-hydrogen technology proved a serious handicap in the race of the two superpowers to the Moon.4 Taming liquid hydrogen is one of the significant technical achievements of twentieth century American rocketry.

The above excerpt is from the Introduction to Taming Liquid Hydrogen: the Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958-2002 ?. This report details why the Centaur was so important in NASA history as an upper stage rocket -- the critical link between its booster stage (Atlas or Titan) and the mission's payload (satellite or spacecraft).

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-1.htm

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: spacemaverick on November 17, 2014, 05:41:24 pm
ArMap...does this help?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 17, 2014, 05:51:13 pm
ArMap...does this help?
Thanks, it does, as it shows at least that there are hydrogen+oxygen rockets that, apparently work in space or in a very rarefied atmosphere. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 17, 2014, 07:19:21 pm
This might help.

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

The highest specific impulse chemical rockets use liquid propellants.

Approximately 170 different liquid propellants have undergone lab testing.

This estimate excludes minor changes to a specific propellant such as
propellant additives, (Often Nitrogen) corrosion inhibitors, or stabilizers.   :)


In the U.S. alone at least 25 different propellant combinations have been flown.

However, there has not been a completely new propellant used in flight for nearly 30 years.

Many factors go into choosing a propellant for a liquid propellant rocket engine.

The primary factors include ease of operation, cost, hazards/environment and performance.

Bipropellants can be either hypergolic or nonhypergolic. A hypergolic combination of oxidizer
and fuel will start to burn upon contact.

A nonhypergolic needs an ignition source.


Hydrogen

Many early rocket theorists believed that hydrogen would be a marvelous propellant
since it gives the highest specific impulse.

It is also considered the cleanest when used with a liquid oxygen oxidizer because the only by-product is water.


As hydrogen in any state is very bulky, for lightweight vehicles it is typically stored
as a deeply cryogenic liquid.

This storage technique was mastered in the early 1950s as part of the hydrogen bomb
development program at Los Alamos.

It was then adopted for hydrogen fueled stages such as Centaur and Saturn upper stages
in the late 50s and early 1960s.

Even as a liquid, hydrogen has low density, requiring large tanks and pumps, and the extreme cold
requires tank insulation.

This extra weight reduces the mass fraction of the stage or requires extraordinary measures
such as pressure stabilization of the tanks to reduce weight.

Pressure stabilized tanks support most of the loads with internal pressure rather than with solid structures.

Most rockets that use hydrogen fuel use it in upper stages only.

Gaseous hydrogen is commercially produced by the fuel-rich burning of natural gas.

Carbon forms a stronger bond with oxygen so the gaseous hydrogen is left behind.

Liquid hydrogen is stored and transported without boil-off because helium, which has a lower boiling point
than hydrogen, is the cooling refrigerant.

Only when hydrogen is loaded on a launch vehicle (where there is no refrigeration) does it vent
to the atmosphere.


NOTE:  IF only Hydrogen & Oxygen is used in a Combustion type Rocket Engine This can NOT Work !

This is a fact of Physics ...   :)

Simply because the by-product is WATER which is far denser than Hydrogen and Oxygen Gas !

In this case an Implosion would take place !   :(


But if another (Inert) gas is Added, the whole Scenario changes, to that of Expansion !   :)


Because the Oxidising Hydrogen heats the Inert gas and thus this Inert gas, because it can't burn easily,
expands rapidly which then pushes against the 'Exhaust Cone' and as it is a Law of physics,

"To every Action there is an opposite and equal reaction"

The Rocket is pushed forward, in the opposite direction the 'Exhaust Cone' is pointing !

Thrust can also be obtained from Non chemical Jets. In other words NOT involving Combustion,
as spacemaverick pointed out.

The same applies re.

"To every Action there is an opposite and equal reaction"

So Rocket Engines are based on this LAW of Physics ....   :)

Any Rocket Engine involving Combustion is a 'Thermal Converter', a simple Scientific Fact ...   :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 18, 2014, 02:27:59 am
NOTE:  IF only Hydrogen & Oxygen is used in a Combustion type Rocket Engine This can NOT Work !

This is a fact of Physics ...   :)
Isn't it used in the last stages, the ones when there's less atmosphere?

I would like to see any real evidence of that fact of Physics, as, apparently, the fact that they use it appears to contradict it.

PS: adding things not related to what I'm asking doesn't help. :(
But thanks for the help. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: The Matrix Traveller on November 18, 2014, 02:53:42 am
ArMap
Quote
On what I'm talking about it is, as I asked about an oxygen+hydrogen rocket, not about any other oxidizer+fuel.

Or is it not possible to make an oxygen+hydrogen rocket?

I answered this in my last post !   ::)

All about Hydrogen and Oxygen as per your Question .

ArMap
Quote
I asked about an oxygen+hydrogen rocket
AND

ArMap
Quote
Or is it not possible to make an oxygen+hydrogen rocket?

TMT
Quote
Hydrogen

Many early rocket theorists believed that hydrogen would be a marvelous propellant
since it gives the highest specific impulse.

It is also considered the cleanest when used with a liquid oxygen oxidizer because the only by-product is water.


As hydrogen in any state is very bulky, for lightweight vehicles it is typically stored
as a deeply cryogenic liquid.

This storage technique was mastered in the early 1950s as part of the hydrogen bomb
development program at Los Alamos.

It was then adopted for hydrogen fueled stages such as Centaur and Saturn upper stages
in the late 50s and early 1960s.

Even as a liquid, hydrogen has low density, requiring large tanks and pumps, and the extreme cold
requires tank insulation.

This extra weight reduces the mass fraction of the stage or requires extraordinary measures
such as pressure stabilization of the tanks to reduce weight.

Pressure stabilized tanks support most of the loads with internal pressure rather than with solid structures.

Most rockets that use hydrogen fuel use it in upper stages only.

Gaseous hydrogen is commercially produced by the fuel-rich burning of natural gas.

Carbon forms a stronger bond with oxygen so the gaseous hydrogen is left behind.

Liquid hydrogen is stored and transported without boil-off because helium, which has a lower boiling point
than hydrogen, is the cooling refrigerant.

Only when hydrogen is loaded on a launch vehicle (where there is no refrigeration) does it vent
to the atmosphere.


NOTE:  IF only Hydrogen & Oxygen is used in a Combustion type Rocket Engine This can NOT Work !

This is a fact of Physics ...   :)

Simply because the by-product is WATER which is far denser than Hydrogen and Oxygen Gas !

In this case an Implosion would take place !   :(


But if another (Inert) gas is Added, the whole Scenario changes, to that of Expansion !   :)


Because the Oxidising Hydrogen heats the Inert gas and thus this Inert gas, because it can't burn easily,
expands rapidly which then pushes against the 'Exhaust Cone' and as it is a Law of physics,

"To every Action there is an opposite and equal reaction"

The Rocket is pushed forward, in the opposite direction the 'Exhaust Cone' is pointing !

Thrust can also be obtained from Non chemical Jets. In other words NOT involving Combustion,
as <spacemaverick> pointed out.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on November 18, 2014, 06:54:32 am
ArMap
I answered this in my last post !   ::)
You did, 2 hours after I made that post you quoted, and I read it this morning, there's no need to repeat it or to "roll eyes".  ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 06:25:58 pm
If it's producing then it's not a specific amount of gas expanding, and I think that's what that "free expansion" principle is about, the expansion of a specific amount of gas into a bigger volume than the one it was occupying before.

Any amount of gas we produce will, by definition, be a "specific amount" as we do not have the ability to produce an infinite amount of gases by any means.

A rocket engine will produce a hell of a lot--yet a specific amount--of gas. After all, it won't have an infinite fuel & oxygen supply and the resulting gas product will be released into the "bigger volume" vacuum of space--entire universe--right?  ;)

From what I can see, outer space has an infinite capacity to accept gases instantly, i.e., in so doing you cannot pressurize it like a gas tank regardless of the speed or volume at which you release gases into it. This is a critical factor in my viewpoint.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 06:31:14 pm
A plane or boat with a running propeller engine will not move in the vacuum of space and I think for the same reasons neither will a rocket in the same environment.

Really? A rocket won't work in the vacuum of space?
By "won't work" I don't mean the engine won't ignite--I allow that it might, so that's a moot point. I mean the rocket won't move.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 06:49:51 pm


You know...I never thought of that....however if you have a chamber closed at one end and you have a force coming out of that chamber then basically the force is against the closed portion of the chamber...right?  The pressure has to go somewhere and from that force you have movement.

The force produced by the expansion of the gases will be against *everything* in the way of those expanding gas molecules, including the surrounding atmosphere.

In outer space the gases will escape into the vacuum with zero resistance; those gas molecules will not push against the chamber. We tend to think certain things will behave in outer space the same way they do on earth because that is our only point of reference.

For example, we tend to act as if our surrounding atmosphere is "nothing" when it is in fact quite dense and offers resistance to the movement of other gases. It is this resistance that a rocket's escaping gases encounter, thus providing a reaction that moves the rocket in the opposite direction.

In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 07:05:06 pm
If Rockets do not work in space...

...how do they get back down from orbit? Exactly! Besides, how do you truly *know* rockets are going into orbit?


If rockets do not work in space...

...then there are NO ANOMALIES in the Moon and Mars photos...

...because they could not have taken those photos on the Moon or Mars

 8)
Bingo! This is why I stated in a previous post they couldn't have done any of this with the technology they'd have us believe they used. I see two possibilities here:

(a) all NASA imagery must be fake because they couldn't have gone up there to
     capture said images, or
(b) at least some of the imagery can be real but they've been using classified
     technology to accomplish these feats.

Either way, we're being lied to.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 07:09:23 pm
If you can disprove a "positive" can you prove a negative?  I had that question offered to me at one time...

Yes.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 05, 2014, 07:26:16 pm
In the end, whether rocket engines will or will not move something in outer space is a matter of conjecture because:

(a) we cannot replicate on earth the environment of outer space by constructing a super-massive, zero-G vacuum chamber with (and this is important) an infinite capacity to accept gases so we may observe if a rocket will or will not move in said environment, and

(b) John Q. Public cannot readily travel into outer space to observe whether or not a rocket will move in the vacuum of space.

Thus, we are left in the uncomfortable position of simply having to accept NASA's claims as a matter of faith.

I, for one, will not as they have no credibility in my book.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 06, 2014, 12:55:55 am
(b) John Q. Public cannot readily travel into outer space to observe whether or not a rocket will move in the vacuum of space.

Ask Tito   he went... with the Russians, not NASA

(http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980w/public/2013/11/21/9189ecc79738205dd1e0534e427e48ec.jpg?itok=UM8tBc1R)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98612
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 06, 2014, 01:56:47 am
In the end, whether rocket engines will or will not move something in outer space is a matter of conjecture because:


[youtube]UEuOpxOrA_0[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuOpxOrA_0
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 06, 2014, 12:12:48 pm
Any amount of gas we produce will, by definition, be a "specific amount" as we do not have the ability to produce an infinite amount of gases by any means.
That's true, but not really an answer to what I wrote, as you broke the sentence in two parts and replied to the first half, making it look like something different.

What I said was that, from what I could find, that "free expansion" is about the expansion of a specific amount of gas, not about the burning of some fuel to produce gas.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 06, 2014, 12:15:31 pm
In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.
As you say "vacuum of space" I got a doubt: what you are saying is supposed to be applied to the "vacuum of space" or to any vacuum?

Edit: I saw now your post saying that we cannot recreate the conditions of space, so please ignore this post, as it was made before I read that post. :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 06, 2014, 04:56:25 pm
In the vacuum of space however, no atmosphere, thus no resistance encountered by exhaust gases, thus no "equal and opposite reaction", thus no movement--at least from where I'm standing.

Well your logic is flawed   8)

Since there is no atmosphere large objects like a rocket or even a large bus sized satellite encounter no resistance from friction. So an Astronaut can literal push a huge satellite by hand  :P

The "equal and opposite reaction" is the gas pushing away from the inside of the rocket which causes the rocket to move  It is NOT the gases pushing against the atmosphere that gives thrust. If that WAS the case the rockets we launch would slow down and fall back as they reached thin air  and we KNOW that does not happen because we can see that with our eyes

Theoretically an Astronaut could point a flashlight in one direction and eventually reach the speed of light (or near it)  Provided the battery did not run out or he ran out of air :P  But the light beam from that flashlight would given enough time be enough to move him

THAT is basically what an ION drive is  a very big flashlight :D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 06, 2014, 10:20:53 pm
Ask Tito   he went... with the Russians, not NASA

(http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980w/public/2013/11/21/9189ecc79738205dd1e0534e427e48ec.jpg?itok=UM8tBc1R)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98612

Right...  ::)

BTW, I'm a billionaire who owns a mega-mansion, a yacht, and date a different supermodel each day of the week.

This is true simply because I say so.  :o
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 06, 2014, 10:51:35 pm
Well your logic is flawed   8)

Since there is no atmosphere large objects like a rocket or even a large bus sized satellite encounter no resistance from friction. So an Astronaut can literal push a huge satellite by hand  :P Sure. But you're talking about solid objects working against each other. However, gases behave a bit differently.

The "equal and opposite reaction" is the gas pushing away from the inside of the rocket which causes the rocket to move Ah... This is basically the NASA view that "rockets (more or less) push against themselves". That's tantamount to thinking people can leapfrog over each other without needing a solid surface that provides resistance to push against. In the vacuum of space the gases will not push against the inside of the rocket because there's nothing forcing them too. They can escape into space with absolutely zero resistance almost instantly. After all, energy takes the path of least resistance. Besides, this action is in harmony with "free expansion of gases" principle. It is NOT the gases pushing against the atmosphere that gives thrust. Exhaust gases pushing against the atmosphere provides some resistance which provides the opposite reaction (recoil), that being the rocket moving in the opposite direction of the exhaust. This is basically the same set of actions involved when a gun fires. If that WAS the case the rockets we launch would slow down and fall back as they reached thin air  and we KNOW that does not happen because we can see that with our eyes. NO! We do not know that happens because we do not see that happen with our own eyes supposedly waaay up there in the atmosphere. We are told that happens, that it's supposed to happen, thus we believe it. I think it is your logic which is flawed.
Theoretically an Astronaut could point a flashlight in one direction and eventually reach the speed of light (or near it)  Provided the battery did not run out or he ran out of air :P  But the light beam from that flashlight would given enough time be enough to move him I don't think the high priests of physics know enough about the nature of light to say that, but anyone can theorize.  :)

THAT is basically what an ION drive is a very big flashlight :D
Exactly--it's theory, and idle speculation does not fact make.

As I stated before, this discussion is mere conjecture as what NASA claims can be neither readily proved nor disproved. If NASA's claimed accomplishments could be proven or disproven there probably wouldn't be a need for forums like this.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 07, 2014, 11:58:54 am
Exactly--it's theory, and idle speculation does not fact make.

As I stated before, this discussion is mere conjecture as what NASA claims can be neither readily proved nor disproved. If NASA's claimed accomplishments could be proven or disproven there probably wouldn't be a need for forums like this.
Why do you speak only of NASA? Many countries have sent rockets into space.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 18, 2014, 04:58:01 pm

[youtube]UEuOpxOrA_0[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuOpxOrA_0
A video of what appears to be a rocket launching on earth isn't proof that rockets are actually going into space.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 18, 2014, 05:02:02 pm
That's true, but not really an answer to what I wrote, as you broke the sentence in two parts and replied to the first half, making it look like something different.

What I said was that, from what I could find, that "free expansion" is about the expansion of a specific amount of gas, not about the burning of some fuel to produce gas.

The burning of some fuel to produce gas is irrelevant. The point is that if a rocket engine is ignited in space the exhaust will escape out the exhaust cone w/o doing any work, i.e., there will be no force created pushing the rocket in the opposite direction.

Anyhow, we can go back and forth until we come down with carpal tunnel syndrome. As I've previously stated we cannot resolve this question because we can't prove it either way.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 18, 2014, 05:09:30 pm
Why do you speak only of NASA? Many countries have sent rockets into space.
Anyone can say anything, but there is no proof. Cheap, easily faked--and demonstrably fake--video & still images do not constitute proof that rockets have gone into space.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 18, 2014, 05:30:13 pm
Anyone can say anything, but there is no proof. Cheap, easily faked--and demonstrably fake--video & still images do not constitute proof that rockets have gone into space.
If the things that can prove you wrong are considered by you as fake then this discussion is useless, as it's only a way of you posting you unproven ideas as if they were true.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 18, 2014, 10:03:40 pm
The point is that if a rocket engine is ignited in space the exhaust will escape out the exhaust cone w/o doing any work, i.e., there will be no force created pushing the rocket in the opposite direction.

The proof is real simple  Just blow up a balloon and release it

 8)

So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on December 20, 2014, 09:39:20 am
I think I am still kinda lost on where the differences in space vs. the atmosphere would cause physics to suspend in terms of action/reaction?

If chemical reactions can still create dramatic pressure increases despite a total lack of oxygen (and they can, as chambers on earth can show), then to continue down this kinda odd line of thinking..what else in space would be different to prevent the propulsion produced by the release of great pressure from an object? We can note the lack of gravity...but is it gravity as a required factor which causes a tube to move opposite from the direction which great pressure is being released?

What would make us think rockets can't function up there?

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 20, 2014, 03:22:00 pm
What would make us think rockets can't function up there?

Not us :P only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on December 20, 2014, 07:04:03 pm
Not us :P only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

Wait a dang minute … what? (http://www.vice.com/read/flat-earth-society-interview-876)
Are You saying the Earth isn't flat (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)?
    :o

However, We have photos acquired from Space Satellites (put there by teleportation, NOT rocket power, Sir Logos…)  ;)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/2125459nOE2ZgrE.jpg)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Phedre on December 20, 2014, 10:51:27 pm
Where are the elephants, holding  the diskworld up?   ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on December 21, 2014, 01:14:11 am
[youtube]Fm8FJ8la2VU[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8FJ8la2VU
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on December 21, 2014, 06:58:04 am
Not us :P only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Of course you're right. I had a feeling I should have quoted on that to avoid any questoins.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 08:53:32 pm
If the things that can prove you wrong are considered by you as fake then this discussion is useless, as it's only a way of you posting you unproven ideas as if they were true.

The same applies to you. ;D

I haven't been proven wrong.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 09:26:54 pm
The proof is real simple  Just blow up a balloon and release it

 8)

So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that ;)You're kidding, right? How does that prove rockets produce thrust in space?

So your claim is that all the images from space are fake?  Well you will need to prove that ;)

I don't have to prove anything of the sort because I never said all the images from space are fake. That doesn't make sense anyway because to be fake images *from* space they would have to have been faked *in* space, the prerequisite being someone would have to have been in space to fake them in space. This prerequisite remains an assumption.  :)

Are you trying to derail the discussion? The issue here is not a question about the veracity of NASA's imagery but whether rockets will produce thrust in a vacuum. Please, let's stay on point.

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 10:08:25 pm
I think I am still kinda lost on where the differences in space vs. the atmosphere would cause physics to suspend in terms of action/reaction?

It's funny how even though space is quite a different environment than that of terra firma people just assume things must work the same up there as they do down here. Of course, it's just an assumption because it has not been, and most likely cannot be, proven either way for reasons I've already stated. It's funny how this point is being ignored. Anyhow, the physics of action/reaction is not being suspended. I think people are mistaken as to what constitutes the reaction.

If chemical reactions can still create dramatic pressure increases despite a total lack of oxygen (and they can, as chambers on earth can show), then to continue down this kinda odd line of thinking..what else in space would be different to prevent the propulsion produced by the release of great pressure from an object?

That's a point I've expounded on in previous posts: In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure. As I previously explained: to be "under pressure" the exhaust gasses would have be under the pressure of, i.e., be ejected by, the force of something else. I think people are applying the same dynamic of a bullet fired from a gun which doesn't apply here. Again, the gasses are not ejected, they merely expand and take the path of zero resistance (exhaust cone open to the vacuum of space). The effect of great pressure from the expanding exhaust gas only occurs on earth because of the resistance the escaping gas encounters from the surrounding dense atmosphere. It is this resistance that produces the eventual reaction of the rocket moving in the opposite direction, i.e., moving away from the launch pad, in the same way the bullet in a gun provides much resistance to the expansion of the gunpowder gases, thus causing the eventual reaction of both the bullet moving out the barrel and the gun recoiling in the opposite direction. If a bullet is fired from a gun in space it will behave the same way as on earth: bullet out the barrel, gun body recoiling in the opposite direction. A rocket in space, however, won't have the resistance provided to its exhaust gases by a dense atmosphere so the desired reaction of the rocket moving in the opposite direction will not occur.

Don't get me wrong--reaction does occur: the exhaust gas molecules will fly off into space in many directions to eventually react with space dust, a passing meteor, a planet's atmosphere, etc., and transfer their momentum to the molecules making up those things--everything and anything except the rocket body.


We can note the lack of gravity...but is it gravity as a required factor which causes a tube to move opposite from the direction which great pressure is being released?

Gravity has nothing to do with the matter at hand.


What would make us think rockets can't function up there?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 10:13:49 pm
Not us :P only Logos

There are also still people who believe the Earth is flat

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Instead of addressing the issue at hand you resort to character assassination because I won't blindly accept what amounts to a religious view?

I believe in evidence but if you don't that's fine with me.  :)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 10:16:18 pm
Wait a dang minute … what? (http://www.vice.com/read/flat-earth-society-interview-876)
Are You saying the Earth isn't flat (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)?
    :o

However, We have photos acquired from Space Satellites (put there by teleportation, NOT rocket power, Sir Logos…)  ;)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/2125459nOE2ZgrE.jpg)

I believe you--I really do. If you say so it must be true especially with that image to back it up.
After all, images equate to reality.  ;D
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 22, 2014, 10:17:48 pm
Where are the elephants, holding  the diskworld up?   ::)

They were airbrushed out of the photo because that doesn't support the official narrative.  ;)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 23, 2014, 02:23:44 am
The same applies to you. ;D
I don't say that the things that I don't agree with are fake.

Quote
I haven't been proven wrong.
You haven't proved you're right either.

Just saying what you think is no proof, and, considering the amount of space craft launched by several countries, you are the one that should present proof that all those missions were either fake or that they were using some other method.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 23, 2014, 01:30:27 pm
In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure. As I previously explained: to be "under pressure" the exhaust gasses would have be under the pressure of, i.e., be ejected by, the force of something else. I think people are applying the same dynamic of a bullet fired from a gun which doesn't apply here. Again, the gasses are not ejected, they merely expand and take the path of zero resistance (exhaust cone open to the vacuum of space).

First let me say that I know nothing about thermodynamics. :)

In the vacuum of space, if you create 10 cubic metres of gas inside a 1 cubic metre chamber with an exit, does the gas exit the chamber in a jet or does it just floats out? If it just floats out, how long does it take to do that?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 28, 2014, 10:54:43 pm
I don't say that the things that I don't agree with are fake.
You haven't proved you're right either. Exactly! That's been my point all along. The question has not and cannot be resolved either way because we lack the means to settle the question.

Just saying what you think is no proof, and, considering the amount of space craft launched by several countries, you are the one that should present proof that all those missions were either fake or that they were using some other method.
It is NASA and those other space agencies which should prove that they're actually sending craft into outer space as they claim. Just because we can see a rocket launch from the earth doesn't mean said rocket is actually going into outer space.

No one is in the position of having to prove said entities didn't and aren't doing what they claim. They are the claimants thus the burden of proof is on them.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on December 28, 2014, 11:52:20 pm
First let me say that I know nothing about thermodynamics. :)

In the vacuum of space, if you create 10 cubic metres of gas inside a 1 cubic metre chamber with an exit, does the gas exit the chamber in a jet or does it just floats out? If it just floats out, how long does it take to do that?

It floats out *very* quickly, in a period that would almost seem instantaneous. "Jet" is not the right word as that conjures up an image of a more directed stream under pressure as would happen on earth.

For example: on earth if you had a highly pressurized gas tank, like your typical long welding gas tank, lying on its side and with a sledgehammer knocked off the valve one would probably see the gas tank move in the opposite direction, just like this has been depicted in Hollywierd films. Note: this isn't the same dynamic as a rocket being launched on earth but is mentioned for illustration.

OTOH, picture that same tank floating in outer space and you're in a space suit next to it. There's a time delay mechanism on the valve that will, in an instant, open it all the way. It is my position that when that valve opens the gas will, in an instant, escape into space though I'm not sure what, if anything, it would look like as it did so. Anyhow, I'm saying you will see that the tank has not moved a millimeter because, upon escaping, the gas will have exerted no pressure on the inside wall of the tank even though on earth, it would have.

This is the "free exapansion" of gases principle I mentioned earlier. NASA and scientists will say that the tank would move yet this is just a supposition. This experiment, or one like it, cannot readily be carried out to determine if the tank (or rocket) will in fact behave as they expect in outer space. However, the "free expansion" principle is the result of experiments that have been carried out which would indicate that what NASA says will happen up there actually won't. But hey, my take on all this is just a theory, too.

Until such an experiment can be readily done by ordinary people either up there or in an identical environment replicated on earth--good luck doing either of those!--what the "establishment" has told us remains a theory. We shouldn't be compelled to accept as fact a statement from scientists that even they haven't proven via their precious published, "peer reviewed" experiments.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 29, 2014, 06:59:43 am
It is NASA and those other space agencies which should prove that they're actually sending craft into outer space as they claim. Just because we can see a rocket launch from the earth doesn't mean said rocket is actually going into outer space.

No one is in the position of having to prove said entities didn't and aren't doing what they claim. They are the claimants thus the burden of proof is on them.
So, basically, you are calling them liars because you think what they say they do it's impossible.

Is that it?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on December 29, 2014, 01:33:28 pm
It floats out *very* quickly, in a period that would almost seem instantaneous. "Jet" is not the right word as that conjures up an image of a more directed stream under pressure as would happen on earth.
How does that happen? How can the gas "float out" almost instantaneously? Wouldn't the gas molecules hit each other while passing through the opening, slowing them down?

Quote
This is the "free exapansion" of gases principle I mentioned earlier.
As I said before, I know nothing about thermodynamics and things like that, but, to me, that's not the "free expansion" you mentioned, as, to me, that "free expansion" applies to a gas expanding by itself (like part of a gas expanding from the heat received by a laser, for example), not exiting a container where it was under pressure.

Quote
However, the "free expansion" principle is the result of experiments that have been carried out which would indicate that what NASA says will happen up there actually won't.
Experiments done in what conditions, Earth conditions or space conditions?

Quote
Until such an experiment can be readily done by ordinary people either up there or in an identical environment replicated on earth--good luck doing either of those!--what the "establishment" has told us remains a theory. We shouldn't be compelled to accept as fact a statement from scientists that even they haven't proven via their precious published, "peer reviewed" experiments.
So, how do you think things happened? Did the people responsible for the first high altitude rocket flights noticed that things were not as they expected (the rocket slowing down because of less air pressure instead of getting faster) but didn't tell anyone and didn't write about it and create a new propulsion system that they didn't publish?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on January 08, 2015, 05:33:34 am
So, basically, you are calling them liars because you think what they say they do it's impossible.

Is that it?
I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

It's funny how on a forum such as this, which is supposedly devoted to questioning what we are told by the PowersThatBe(tm)--especially NASA, that this notion would encounter such resistance. It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars.  :o

Anyhow, what I may think or say about them doesn't matter. It's what they're saying--or rather, what they're not--that is the issue.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on January 08, 2015, 06:40:29 am
How does that happen? How can the gas "float out" almost instantaneously? Because there's nothing at that point forcing the molecules to remain in proximity to each other.

Wouldn't the gas molecules hit each other while passing through the opening, slowing them down? Even if they were slowed down because they were exiting via a very tiny opening--not that I'm saying they would be because I don't know--they wouldn't impart a force to anything else while exiting.

As I said before, I know nothing about thermodynamics and things like that, but, to me, that's not the "free expansion" you mentioned, as, to me, that "free expansion" applies to a gas expanding by itself (like part of a gas expanding from the heat received by a laser, for example), not exiting a container where it was under pressure. How the gas got to be under pressure doesn't matter. Gases are always "under pressure" trying to expand and do so to the extent that they are restricted by an outside force, e.g., being in a tank or being a planet's atmosphere that doesn't expand/escape out to infinity because the molecules are pulled to the planet's surface by gravity.

Experiments done in what conditions, Earth conditions or space conditions? The published experiments go back to the 1850s or so, thus I'd put my money on them having been done in Earth conditions. ;) "Free Expansion" is also known as the "Joule-Thomson" effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson, two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry. For example, a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002) NASA knows of this and mentions it in their DICTIONARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS FOR AEROSPACE USE. However, they slipped it in to the entry for first law of thermodynamics: http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html (http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html) The principle states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expands into the vacuum without doing any work. The gas is not "pulled" or "sucked" into the vacuum nor is it "pushed" out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost. We have a rocket generating a high volume of gas at a high pressure (high pressure on Earth, at least) generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. No work == no movement.

So, how do you think things happened? Did the people responsible for the first high altitude rocket flights noticed that things were not as they expected (the rocket slowing down because of less air pressure instead of getting faster) but didn't tell anyone and didn't write about it and create a new propulsion system that they didn't publish? It's unproductive to speculate about what, if anything, really may have happened otherwise. By doing so one assumes a burden one isn't obligated to bear. Again, it's not for us to explain "what", if anything, even "did" happen. It is for NASA to prove their claims. This is no different from a court of law situation, which is also how people interact in their personal lives: the claimant/plaintiff/prosecutor has the burden of proof, the respondant/defendant, none.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on January 08, 2015, 06:58:08 am
I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
I never liked that Carl Sagan expression, as the proof only needs to be correct, it doesn't need to be extraordinary to proof something is real, but I never really liked Carl Sagan either. :)

Anyway, I think all those satellites around us prove that the system works, so I think that anyone saying that's not true are the ones that need to prove their point.

Quote
It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars.  :o
I don't start by considering anyone a liar, authorities or not, I always start to accept what anyone tells me, if they show enough evidence and until proven wrong.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on January 08, 2015, 07:03:35 am
Because there's nothing at that point forcing the molecules to remain in proximity to each other.
So, they would move instantaneously from a point to another?

Quote
How the gas got to be under pressure doesn't matter. Gases are always "under pressure" trying to expand and do so to the extent that they are restricted by an outside force, e.g., being in a tank or being a planet's atmosphere that doesn't expand/escape out to infinity because the molecules are pulled to the planet's surface by gravity.
A planet's atmosphere expands, but not outside the planet. It's the expansion and compression of the atmosphere that creates the wind.

Quote
No work == no movement.
I think there's a definition missing in this, the definition of "work". In this context, what does "work" represents?

Quote
It's unproductive to speculate about what, if anything, really may have happened otherwise.
I don't think so, as all things have a history behind them, so, if people thought that rockets would work in space and they do not there must have been a point in time in which people started to notice that things didn't work as they were expecting.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Glaucon on January 08, 2015, 06:06:13 pm

One thing I noticed is that, some times, those that have the strongest beliefs are the ones that change to a new one more easily. That's why I try to avoid strong beliefs
Amen brother
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on January 08, 2015, 07:57:55 pm
I'm demanding they "put up or shut up" or, like Carl Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Well in this case since the majority of the world knows that rockets work in space because all they have to do is look UP and see the satellites in orbit and the ISS fly overhead. Their cell phone signals bounce off satellites and go around the world so we know that they were put into orbit.

So at this point it is on YOU to provide your "extraordinary proof" because it is YOU making the "extraordinary claim"

 ::)

Quote
It's funny how on a forum such as this, which is supposedly devoted to questioning what we are told by the PowersThatBe(tm)--especially NASA, that this notion would encounter such resistance.

No that is not what we are devoted to. We do not throw out real science in our search for more answers

Quote
It seems double minded to doubt what authorities say on the one hand and simultaneously attack anyone who questions said authorities with the other, because anyone who would question what authorities tell them is a tin foil hat nutjob even though the authorities are believed to be liars.  :o

In the case of rockets in space their is no need to believe or dis believe the authorities. We can track the evidence ourselves. Amateur trackers have followed the X37 space plan make changes in orbit. If the rockets didn't work, then how would it change orbit?

Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Wrabbit2000 on January 09, 2015, 01:20:39 pm


Well, I do appreciate the lengthy reply. My points my run along with others who posted after I last did, but I'll reply to what you wrote to me.

Quote
It's funny how even though space is quite a different environment than that of terra firma people just assume things must work the same up there as they do down here.

I don't assume anything. In fact, I tend to laugh at people who do, as it normally makes an ass out of them and proves the old saying true. We have over 50 years of chemical rockets delivering all shapes and sizes of objects to Earth Orbit and beyond for successful space flight. There is no assuming involved. It's watching the time tested and long proven methods which were considered old and well proven before I was born.

Quote
That's a point I've expounded on in previous posts: In the vacuum of space there is no "release of great pressure" from the nozzle of a rocket engine because the exhaust gases themselves are not *under* pressure.

Well, I suppose I'll put this very simply. I don't recognize you as possessing any credentials or authority by which to claim superior positions for data, and you're supplying nothing but your own very shaky personal opinions as proof of claims against basic, simple physics and known science.

If you can begin to support or at least show reason to think you may be onto something....aside from pure personal opinion or other blogs to support a blog post? I'll be happy to discuss this...but you lost me for chat when you threw out well established science as if it were as kooky as a theory suggesting physics just stop functioning at the line into space.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Norval on January 09, 2015, 10:54:57 pm
Zorgon posted enough EVIDENCE for me to say, , ,

Jets DO NOT work in space, rockets DO work in space.

Nuff said. sheeeeeeeeeesh 18 freakin pages of this crapola? ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: thorfourwinds on January 27, 2015, 05:30:21 pm
Quote
I believe you--I really do. If you say so it must be true especially with that image to back it up.
After all, images equate to reality.  ;D

[youtube]lNwWOul4i9Y[/youtube]

Alexander Gerst’s Earth timelapses - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNwWOul4i9Y)

Published on Dec 22, 2014
Watch Earth roll by through the perspective of ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst in this six-minute timelapse video from space. Combining 12,500 images taken by Alexander during his six-month Blue Dot mission on the International Space Station, this Ultra High Definition video shows the best our beautiful planet has to offer.

Marvel at the auroras, sunrises, clouds, stars, oceans, the Milky Way, the International Space Station, lightning, cities at night, spacecraft and the thin band of atmosphere that protects us from space.

Often while conducting scientific experiments or docking spacecraft Alexander would set cameras to automatically take pictures at regular intervals.

Combining these images gives the timelapse effect seen in this video.

Watch the video in 4K resolution for the best effect and find out more about Alexander Gerst’s Blue Dot mission here: http://www.esa.int/BlueDot
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on February 01, 2015, 10:40:40 am
I never liked that Carl Sagan expression, as the proof only needs to be correct, it doesn't need to be extraordinary to proof something is real, but I never really liked Carl Sagan either. :) Agreed, and I never liked Sagan either.

Anyway, I think all those satellites around us prove that the system works, so I think that anyone saying that's not true are the ones that need to prove their point. There is no such proof because we can't actually observe there are "all those satellites" as the PTB claim. Your statement starts with the assumption there are "all those satellites". Again, you have it wrong: one who doubts another's claim need not prove anything. The claimant (the PTB) has the onus probandi to prove they do indeed have "all those satellites" as they would have us believe.

I don't start by considering anyone a liar, authorities or not, I always start to accept what anyone tells me, if they show enough evidence and until proven wrong.
NASA, and "authorities" in general, do not have a good track record of being truthful with the public. Therefore, I start with the assumption that this liar is lying to me until proven otherwise. Even if they weren't caught lying in the past it would behoove anyone to take what they claim with a chunk of salt simply because there's no way for anyone to prove or disprove much of what they say. And what sort of "evidence" satisfies you in regards to NASA's claims? Imagery?  ;D ::) ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on February 01, 2015, 11:03:08 am
Well in this case since the majority of the world knows that rockets work in space because all they have to do is look UP and see the satellites in orbit and the ISS fly overhead. People aren't seeing anything that clearly looks like satellites and the purported ISS. Their cell phone signals bounce off satellites and go around the world so we know that they were put into orbit. They've been bouncing signals of the atmosphere and using repeaters for ages, so that doesn't mean there are satellites in orbit.

So at this point it is on YOU to provide your "extraordinary proof" because it is YOU making the "extraordinary claim" I'm not the claimant thus I need not prove anything.

 ::)

No that is not what we are devoted to. We do not throw out real science in our search for more answers. No, you just ignore the real, published science that disagrees with your viewpoint.

In the case of rockets in space their is no need to believe or dis believe the authorities. We can track the evidence ourselves. Amateur trackers have followed the X37 space plan make changes in orbit. If the rockets didn't work, then how would it change orbit? Sure.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on February 01, 2015, 11:27:23 am
Well, I do appreciate the lengthy reply. My points my run along with others who posted after I last did, but I'll reply to what you wrote to me.

I don't assume anything. In fact, I tend to laugh at people who do, as it normally makes an ass out of them and proves the old saying true. We have over 50 years of chemical rockets delivering all shapes and sizes of objects to Earth Orbit and beyond for successful space flight. There's just a belief that rockets have been going into orbit. There is no assuming involved. There's plenty of assumption here regarding what can't be observed. It's watching the time tested and long proven methods which were considered old and well proven before I was born.

Well, I suppose I'll put this very simply. I don't recognize you as possessing any credentials or authority by which to claim superior positions for data, and you're supplying nothing but your own very shaky personal opinions as proof of claims against basic, simple physics and known science. I never claimed to possess credentials or authority. I've just presented the known, published physics that rebuts some people's "very shaky personal opinions" about certain space-related matters.

If you can begin to support or at least show reason to think you may be onto something I already have in this thread. However, if you want to ignore it and pretend I haven't repeatedly supported my position then there's little I can do about that. ....aside from pure personal opinion or other blogs to support a blog post? I'll be happy to discuss this...but you lost me for chat when you threw out well established science as if it were as kooky as a theory suggesting physics just stop functioning at the line into space. You lost me when you ignored the established physics that demonstrates what would--or should I say, "wouldn't"--happen in space.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on February 01, 2015, 11:29:29 am
Zorgon posted enough EVIDENCE for me to say, , ,

Jets DO NOT work in space, rockets DO work in space.

Nuff said. sheeeeeeeeeesh 18 freakin pages of this crapola? ::)
No evidence, just theories on both sides. As previously stated, it's not like we can readily observe what would/wouldn't happen up there.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Logos on February 01, 2015, 11:30:52 am
At this point we're just repeating ourselves, so there's little left to say.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on February 01, 2015, 01:07:31 pm
There is no such proof because we can't actually observe there are "all those satellites" as the PTB claim. Your statement starts with the assumption there are "all those satellites". Again, you have it wrong: one who doubts another's claim need not prove anything. The claimant (the PTB) has the onus probandi to prove they do indeed have "all those satellites" as they would have us believe.
Does that mean that you don't believe in satellite TV, GPS, satellite photos, etc? ???

And there's at least one satellite I have seen (and photographed) more than once, the ISS. :)

Quote
NASA, and "authorities" in general, do not have a good track record of being truthful with the public. Therefore, I start with the assumption that this liar is lying to me until proven otherwise.
I don't like that approach.

But even regardless of any track record, NASA was not even the first to put a satellite in orbit, does that mean that they followed the USSR's lie when they could have shown that they were lying?

Quote
And what sort of "evidence" satisfies you in regards to NASA's claims? Imagery?
Why not imagery? How do you think they get all those satellite photos, with big kites?  :P
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on February 01, 2015, 01:15:13 pm
At this point we're just repeating ourselves, so there's little left to say.
You could answer this, from a post you ignored.

Quote
No work == no movement.
I think there's a definition missing in this, the definition of "work". In this context, what does "work" represents?
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: Pimander on February 02, 2015, 08:13:09 am
The trouble with, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" is that anyone can say something that they don't believe is "extraordinary" and therefore demand impossible proofs.  It's nonsense basically.  Something is either true (and not extraordinary) or untrue (or unknown entirely).  None of those cases fit the definition of "extraordinary.

Carl Sagan wrote an absolutely terrible book full of things that he had no proof of called "The Demon Haunted World."  I keep a copy of that book to remind me how often people take what a scientist says to be true without looking at the evidence.  ::)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: FreeSlave on January 08, 2016, 02:03:53 pm
@ thorfourwinds

"“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, "

That quote by Wernher von Braun was about an alternate design, the single-vehicle spacecraft, instead of the multiple stages used by his rocket design, the Saturn V.

The various stages of the rocket deplete their fuel then drop away, leaving a much smaller, much less massive spacecraft behind.  This design requires much less fuel.

"Notice that the 10,000 lb thrust motors did not disturb the lunar surface, nor splash dust on those landing pods.   :P"

The lander was parking, so it wasn't using all of its 10,000 lbs of thrust.  Do you park your car by putting the accelerator to the floor?  No.  The thrust was around 2000 lbs at landing and there is no air between to get pushed into the surface.  Besides, the surface WAS disturbed, just not burned or scorched into a crater.

"And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit!"

It flew into a much closer orbit to the moon, then adjusted its orbit to meet up with the orbiting Command/Service module.

Here is a video demonstrating Lunar Orbit Rendezvous:

https://youtu.be/UOnKHX1p8s4?t=3m40s


Basically, everything you've said is just uninformed opinions and bad assumptions.
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: zorgon on January 08, 2016, 05:07:28 pm
@ thorfourwinds

"“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, "


Sometime no matter how you try to show people... the best evidence slips right through NASA's censors  :P
All you Apollo Huggers out there... waiting for your explanation :P

(https://scontent.flas1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12509238_1717487585204572_6505719811971661425_n.jpg?oh=03c6feb04aaecc28dba0edaf0a2defe8&oe=57411939)
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: ArMaP on January 08, 2016, 05:43:32 pm
All you Apollo Huggers out there... waiting for your explanation :P
Explanation of what? ???
Title: Re: One thing no one can disprove...
Post by: SerpUkhovian on January 10, 2016, 06:24:26 am

Sometime no matter how you try to show people... the best evidence slips right through NASA's censors  :P
All you Apollo Huggers out there... waiting for your explanation :P

(https://scontent.flas1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12509238_1717487585204572_6505719811971661425_n.jpg?oh=03c6feb04aaecc28dba0edaf0a2defe8&oe=57411939)

That's easy, this picture is from the joint Apollo 19 / 20 mission to visit the crashed UFO on the moon.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_43.htm