Recent Posts

1

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

« Last post by onebigmonkey on Today at 12:05:54 PM »

The flag in each of these three images is in exactly the same position at different points in the mission.

It is off screen in the final TV footage because the camera has changed view.

It re-appears as it oscillates thanks to the air movement before returning to a final resting place off camera.

2

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

« Last post by onebigmonkey on Today at 11:28:49 AM »

No.

Photographic evidence of the flagpole not being vertical proves it was not vertical.

Aside from the RCS hot fires, there are two flag movement events. Both events coincide exactly with LM depressurisations. The flag can rotate freely on the slanted pole. It comes to rest when it has finished oscillating in response to air currents from the LM. That resting position can be confirmed by photographs and the 16mm footage.

The flag is not being blown towards the LM. Footage has not been modified. There is no studio. Websites change all the time.

3

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

« Last post by bknight on Today at 10:01:01 AM »

You still haven't answered my question please note a time stamp when the dish falls away with gravity?

4

The Hoax Theory / Re: Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

« Last post by bknight on Today at 09:49:27 AM »

Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.

Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload.  Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship

Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?

Thanks for the info - I will record/keep ALL Of this for later reference.  My rookie focus is purposefully limited to (for now) only "the moon landing part".   I have abundant very solid reasons to doubt this.

As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way.   My thoughts haven't been tested.   Your comments are great, and what I really need most.  Thank you.

Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:

1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds.   And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.

I have seen their "work" and found it lacking.  I built with some help a spreadsheet that models the ascent of A11 quiet correctly with publish data.  Bob B. has a similar calculation on his website, try looking at using the way back machine.

2. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.

No, RPG fuel was injected into the engine bell to help cool it.  The real reason they throttled back was to maintain an   acceleration of ~4.5g.  You are really bad at this

3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there....     So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling...   But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings???    Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's??     They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!

For an individual who proclaims a good geal of physics knowledge, you don't show much. the reason for Starship refuelings is in part business, they want a fully reusable rocket. NASA only wanted to go to the Moon.  Secondly and this goes again with reusability Saturn V used three stages, a more optimal launch system, than SpaceX using two stages.

I get some of the excuses -- but there is a DRAMATIC rift here...  between what we "said we did" vs. "what we can do now"... regarding the "Payload capacity" and Rocket power needed to launch to the moon.

===
Again -- the above is not-tested/vetted -- I'm writing it to you now -- so you can tell me what about all of this is crap, or how it's refuted.

You should really read about Apollo in other places than CT it would broaden your mind.

5

The Hoax Theory / Re: Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 08:40:59 AM »

And why use SaturnV when we have ones with MORE power today -- just use two of those... and we're done, right?

I'm being flippant. One of the rocket guys is better qualified to answer your parroted claim.

And since Apollo tech knows how to rendezvous 50x faster than ISS/CST100/etc -- we should use their designs for this too.  Why take hours to dock, when Apollo always did it in a few minutes.

You don't know what you are talking about .

6

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 08:36:30 AM »

#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer.     In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"...    If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.

The dish is still held in place, it is oscillating between extremes of what is holding it, one side to the other. Impacts lessen inertia.

This is a slam dunk win for MLH.

And NASA were that stupid that they scripted it, transmitted it live and filmed it on 16mm. Then chatted about it.

Not for them the bloody obvious "CUT, someone tape that damn dish up"!

Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking).   And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).

Yep, that's what's happening - NASA release box-sets, DVDS and still do so, the internet is replete with versions of this and because the ALSJ doesn't have a link to the DAC footage - we get this stupid statement. You people act like clones, devoid of logic or reason and making the same old claims as you stumble upon them.

7

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 08:27:41 AM »

Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here.  If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.

Yeah you run away when the evidence doesn't fit your daft theory.

Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.

How about we ask AI?

Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:

Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.

I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.

So what. I have a volleyball player where you don't. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. You're still lying when you say it goes too fast.

Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples.   Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.

Anyone can see how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, the video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.

Why does the sand rise?  I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).

You are clearly not a physics expert. The force is friction.

8

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

« Last post by najak on Today at 08:26:27 AM »

#1: Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum!
#2: Nope and you ignored how NASA must have been morons to do this.
#3: I said if they can be bothered.

#1: Each of the 6 changes in direction are lesser magnitude -- so the big dirty question is "what causes them to change direction at decreasing amplitudes??" - only the presence of Gravity supplies the needed answer.     In no gravity -- if they haven't reached the "further rotational extent... then there is nothing to bounce off of!"...    If you watch these rotations in slow motion (which I have), you'll see it moving "like a pendulum with gravity"... it slows down at the end of each move, before changing direction ... very parabolic.

This is a slam dunk win for MLH.

Now I see why the Debunking sites pretend this issue doesn't exist (and omit it from debunking).   And why NASA site no longer shows (hasn't for years).

==
#2: NASAX, not NASA.   NASAX has a lot more military men, pragmatic - and guess what, "they were right"  -- even with all of these subtle (but provable/damning) mistakes -- EVERYONE BOUGHT IT.    They didn't need to waste their time fixing it all.

Antenna breaks??   "have Bean simply say, My Antenna is OK" and move on like nothing is wrong.    IT WORKED.  They weren't morons.  They're all dead now -- and STILL most of the world still swallows the Apollo lie.

Verdict:  NASAX knows their audience.  NASAX succeeded.  So, not morons.

==
#3: Please "bother them" - it's a quick answer -- "how did Apollo 11 communicate with Houston" for the first few minutes, and why didn't they have their S-Band dish set to "Track earth" - as did Apollo 12 (until it snapped).

9

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

« Last post by najak on Today at 08:16:41 AM »

Why are you not responding to the other 2 issues?

Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here.  If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.

Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.

I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.

Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples.   Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.

Why does the sand rise?  I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).

I'm sure you disagree.... that's fine.  I care what the physicists would say... too bad we don't seem to have any here.  Do you know of any you can summon?

10

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Apollo 12 Lunar Rendezvous, Dish Falls with Gravity

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 08:14:33 AM »

If the camera were oriented downwards, then the pendulum effect would be operating away from the camera, as we see.  A 14 degree rotation doesn't significantly change the "downward position" - and so gravity acting on this dish to make it "level with the ground" -- will cause it to continue to swing like a pendulum until it levels out...  which it does after 6 seconds.

And NASA were dumb enough not to know what you "know"?

While if this were in no-gravity, then gravity wouldn't be there to "keep it swinging" when the angular rotation, as you insisted would cause this oscillation to slow down very quickly.

When something "loose" only oscillates for 6 seconds? And you say you understand physics? That's quick by any standards!

So you really made the strong argument for how "gravity must be present" else the dish would have stopped oscillating more quickly...

Your major skill appears to be chronic circular logic.

Also -- since the oscillations get less each time --- it's not BOUNCING BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES -- but instead this oscillation can ONLY be explained by gravity.

Released tension, subsequent inertia and Newton's 3rd law. My use of the words "pendulum effect" are not saying this is a pendulum!

This example gets stronger and stronger as we go.

Nope and you ignored how NASA must have been morons to do this.

Yes, please bring in a "Comm's guy" to explain how Apollo 11 had good reason to not aim their S-Band dish at earth, while Apollo 12 did.  This'll might be good.

I said if they can be bothered.