To The Moon

valamhic said:
I think the Chinese mission is real, it does not tell us much about the colour at all. There does seem to be a reddish tinge in some of the photos.
Click to expand...
China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced
 
Hermit said:
Val, there is a much simpler debunking that does not require one to go into the weeds about landers and whatnot.

> Gas pressure is defined as as the force of gas particles colliding with the walls of its CONTAINER.
> There is gas pressure on earth (the air we breathe).
> Therefore the gas pressure on earth also requires a container.
> Without a container, the gas on earth would disperse freely in all directions into a vacuum of space if it existed.
> Therefore space does not and cannot exist because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Gas pressure is maintained on earth by the pull of gravity. Gas is matter same as rocks made of atoms and all atoms are pulled by gravity. The pull is equal to 14.5 lbs per sq inch or 1 bar pressure at sea level.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced
Click to expand...
Are they, I would have thought the era of faking space was over. The Russians said the moon is brown also. There has to be iron there and some oxygen to rust it slightly.
 
They used helicopters to lift the crafts and wires from the roofs which were commonly used by Hollywood.
 
PlunkettsGhost said:
China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced
Click to expand...
So, when I prove the moon is brown in two of China's colour pictures I am told China
faked it. Now we have accepted one of them faked it. We are told the USA was too honest
to fake it so it must be China? The Russians pointed out that the moon is brown 10 years ago in a video I saw. I believe the moon is brown, it has to be brown. Black and white is a Hollywood film development evolution.
 
Did anyone notice the complete lack of fear among the astronauts during Apollo? There was no sense of having taken a huge risk and succeeded. Not one of them ever saw a star either. Not one star was seen in the sky. The rover was powered by potassium hydroxide batteries which provided hours of travel on the moon. There was no lithium that time. There was no way to charge them once they left earth. The whole think is ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get to know about Hydrazine 50 fuel. Used in Apollo ascent modules and Titan 2 rockets.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=hypergolic+burning+in+Nothingham+university+you+tube&qs=n&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=hypergolic+burning+in+nothingham+university+you+tube&sc=0-52&sk=&cvid=B1689F9AA6FE458484062B9F5ECD23EF&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=&daf1=1&ru=/search?q=hypergolic+burning+in+Nothingham+university+you+tube&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=hypergolic+burning+in+nothingham+university+you+tube&sc=0-52&sk=&cvid=B1689F9AA6FE458484062B9F5ECD23EF&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=&daf1=1&mmscn=vwrc&mid=5B4EFA8CB2963407EAF75B4EFA8CB2963407EAF7&FORM=WRVORC
 
Last edited:
Here is a titan 2 rocket used to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. See the smoke.

Check You tube because I have an add blocker and cannot see You tube.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyowyIyNUfg
, Hydrazine 50 is extremely dangerous if spilled. It is extremely dirty with a huge blume of white smoke. Yet the Apollo 15 and 17 ascent vehicles emitted no smoke or flame lifting off the moon. You can see up into the engine exhaust.

There is no flame or smoke at all proving it was fake , lifted by a rope.

Go to 1 minute plus 35 seconds, no exhaust at all.

apollo 15 ascent module you tube - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
 
valamhic said:
Gas pressure is maintained on earth by the pull of gravity
Click to expand...
Baseless assertion. Prove your claim. Demonstrate gas being pulled by gravity. Demonstrate gas pressure without a container. Demonstrate a ball of gas in a vacuum.

Gravity is not a container. Gravity is a theory about the bending of "spacetime". Bendy spacetime has nothing to do with gas pressure.
 
Hermit said:
Baseless assertion. Prove your claim. Demonstrate gas being pulled by gravity. Demonstrate gas pressure without a container. Demonstrate a ball of gas in a vacuum.

Gravity is not a container. Gravity is a theory about the bending of "spacetime". Bendy spacetime has nothing to do with gas pressure.
Click to expand...
He's off the rocker again.
 
Kangal said:
Gravity affects gases in several ways:
  1. Density stratification: In a gravitational field, gases tend to stratify based on their density, with heavier gases settling towards the bottom and lighter gases rising towards the top. This is known as density stratification or buoyancy.
  2. Pressure variation: Gravity also affects the pressure of gases. In a gravitational field, the pressure of a gas decreases with height, as the weight of the gas above exerts less pressure on the gas below.
  3. Atmospheric effects: Gravity plays a crucial role in shaping the Earth's atmosphere. The gravitational force of the Earth holds the atmosphere in place, preventing it from escaping into space. Gravity also causes the atmosphere to be denser at lower altitudes and thinner at higher altitudes.
And we see all these effects.
Click to expand...
What has this to do with the topic. Do you believe the film of the ascent module lifting off the moon in Apollo 15 and 17 is real or fake?
 
valamhic said:
So, when I prove the moon is brown in two of China's colour pictures I am told China
faked it. Now we have accepted one of them faked it. We are told the USA was too honest
to fake it so it must be China? The Russians pointed out that the moon is brown 10 years ago in a video I saw. I believe the moon is brown, it has to be brown. Black and white is a Hollywood film development evolution.
Click to expand...
Brown is most likely correct. At times it gets very hot on the moons surface, up to 120C in the sun for long extended periods without any rain ever, so the surface is sure to appear a bit baked.

Of course the dark side of the moon is bound to be a different colour/shade due to not getting baked or bleached :geek:

Meanwhile, we can now ask the question, how did the early astronauts survive 100C+ temps?? 😅

ETA:- Actually "baked" is probably not the most accurate term, instead we can safely assume that the surface gets 'Grilled' which tally's with the astronauts experience of what space smells like - "Burnt Steak":LOL:
 
Last edited:
valamhic said:
He's off the rocker again.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem. I ask you to support your claim and all you have is a weak insult. Absolutely pathetic and cowardly behaviour.

Let me put it in crude terms you may understand. The farts from your cows disperse in all directions into the atmosphere, the farts are not being pulled down to the earth by gravity. Any gas you use on your farm must be stored in tanks, i.e. containers. The gas in your tractor tyres are contained in the tyres - punch a hole in the tyres and the gas dissipates in all directions, it's not held down by gravity. The smoke from your fire goes straight up the chimney, it doesn't stay down in the fireplace held down by gravity.

Kangal said:
Gravity affects gases in several ways
Click to expand...
Prove it by practical demonstration. Baseless assertions about gravitational fields are not proof.
 
Hermit said:
Ad hominem. I ask you to support your claim and all you have is a weak insult. Absolutely pathetic and cowardly behaviour.

Let me put it in crude terms you may understand. The farts from your cows disperse in all directions into the atmosphere, the farts are not being pulled down to the earth by gravity. Any gas you use on your farm must be stored in tanks, i.e. containers. The gas in your tractor tyres are contained in the tyres - punch a hole in the tyres and the gas dissipates in all directions, it's not held down by gravity. The smoke from your fire goes straight up the chimney, it doesn't stay down in the fireplace held down by gravity.


Prove it by practical demonstration. Baseless assertions about gravitational fields are not proof.
Click to expand...
The topic is about the alleged moon landings. If you want to talk about gas pressure why don't ya open a new thread on that? Dan should not allow de railing.
 
Professor said:
Brown is most likely correct. At times it gets very hot on the moons surface, up to 120C in the sun for long extended periods without any rain ever, so the surface is sure to appear a bit baked.

Of course the dark side of the moon is bound to be a different colour/shade due to not getting baked or bleached :geek:

Meanwhile, we can now ask the question, how did the early astronauts survive 100C+ temps?? 😅

ETA:- Actually "baked" is probably not the most accurate term, instead we can safely assume that the surface gets 'Grilled' which tally's with the astronauts experience of what space smells like - "Burnt Steak":LOL:
Click to expand...
The far side of the moon gets the same sunlight as all the rest over a given period. When you see a quarter moon the other 3/4 is receiving sun and is as bright as what you see. The moon is tidal locked so that the same side always faces the earth. A moon day is about 28 days. so that there is half the day (14 days) bright and 14 dark.

The Chinese mission did show a slight baked effect. A bit like the skin on a rice pudding.
 
valamhic said:
The topic is about the alleged moon landings. If you want to talk about gas pressure why don't ya open a new thread on that? Dan should not allow de railing.
Click to expand...
I gave you the gas pressure argument as a much simpler debunk of the moon landings. Pearls to swine.

I am not derailing. The topic is moon landings, the moon is claimed to exist in space, and I'm talking about gas pressure because it debunks the notion of space and by extension debunks the moon landings.
 
Hermit said:
I gave you the gas pressure argument as a much simpler debunk of the moon landings. Pearls to swine.

I am not derailing. The topic is moon landings, the moon is claimed to exist in space, and I'm talking about gas pressure because it debunks the notion of space and by extension debunks the moon landings.
Click to expand...
Pearls to swine has nothing to do with the topic. Dan should tread ban you. We were having a good discussion until you began derailing it. You will not say why you think gas pressure has a bearing on the subject.
 
Kangal said:
Step outside. Hike up a mountain. (I've been to Everest Base Camp, I guarantee you the air is thinner).

If the atmosphere was inside a container, then air pressure and air density would be constant everywhere as you ascend.
Click to expand...
Have you any idea what Hermit is on about? Ad Homenin and farts and pearl of swine. Looks like we will have to abandon the thread unless Dan steps in.
 
Hermit said:
Ad hominem. I ask you to support your claim and all you have is a weak insult. Absolutely pathetic and cowardly behaviour.

Let me put it in crude terms you may understand. The farts from your cows disperse in all directions into the atmosphere, the farts are not being pulled down to the earth by gravity. Any gas you use on your farm must be stored in tanks, i.e. containers. The gas in your tractor tyres are contained in the tyres - punch a hole in the tyres and the gas dissipates in all directions, it's not held down by gravity. The smoke from your fire goes straight up the chimney, it doesn't stay down in the fireplace held down by gravity.


Prove it by practical demonstration. Baseless assertions about gravitational fields are not proof.
Click to expand...
Thus fuckin cunt is raving, no one ever mentioned gravitational fields
 
Kangal said:
In a vacuum, certainly.

But it certainly raised quite a lot of dust on ignition.
Click to expand...
An ambiguous answer. So how could the Apollo 15 and 17 ascent module lift off the moon
without emitting any smoke whatsoever and with no flame whatsoever as it rises up? The module was sitting on top of a lunar lander and the bolts are cut with a small high explosive charge in each bolt. That is visible, once cut there are no further emissions. How do you explain that except that the film was fake?
 
Wha
Professor said:
Brown is most likely correct. At times it gets very hot on the moons surface, up to 120C in the sun for long extended periods without any rain ever, so the surface is sure to appear a bit baked.

Of course the dark side of the moon is bound to be a different colour/shade due to not getting baked or bleached :geek:

Meanwhile, we can now ask the question, how did the early astronauts survive 100C+ temps?? 😅

ETA:- Actually "baked" is probably not the most accurate term, instead we can safely assume that the surface gets 'Grilled' which tally's with the astronauts experience of what space smells like - "Burnt Steak":LOL:
Click to expand...
What they said was the they landed in the twilight zone. There are about 28 earth days in a lunar day. Therefore dusk is 28 takes longer. (28 days X 24hours) = 672 hours. If dawn on earth lasts half on earth or 1/48th of a day then on the moon 673/48 = 14 hours. A half hour on earth = .5 X 24 = 14 hours. They were there on average 2 days and they had sunlight for it all. Roughly 4 dusks.
 
When Apollo 11 came in to land, the crew were no worried about landing at dusk. They landed in broad daylight on the moon. When they emerged out to walk, it was semi dark. This is complicated, but Professor raised a very good question.

I carried out a detailed examination of the hammer and feather experiment and found it happened shortly after the USA commissioned a new vacuum chamber in the mid west. (not before). So it could have been done in that facility. https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...851C88056AC77056892B851C88056AC7705&FORM=VIRE
 
Note the angle of the sun in that Hammer and feather video. The sun most have been about 30 degrees up for the shadow to fall that way.
 
Kangal said:
Hypergolic fuels burn clear in a vacuum.

It's not the only fuel that burns clear.


View: https://youtu.be/lmEsU-QYxNk?si=y_VSo6moZ4Zbs7ip
Click to expand...

That is what I laboured so hard to get you to say. To commit. You are of course totally wrong and this goes to the heart of my argument. There are too effects, 1 is the huge plume of smoke which dies disperse faster in a vacuum and the second is the flame from the nozzle which is exactly the same in a vacuum or on earth. We are discussing hypergolic propellant and you post a video and methanol. Two totally different fires.

What you say is a myth, intuitive thinking.
 
The only scenario left is that all the scenes were fake but the did go to the moon? Could that happen? The Russians never conformed that they tracked Apollo.
 
Kangal said:
I'm sorry, Val. Hypergolic flames burn clear in a vacuum.

You can see it here.


View: https://youtu.be/57o-t2y4zHc?si=KSs1NFgirZCFAuTC


Once the Titan 2 is clear of the silo, it's rising on an clear flame (the smoke is from other combustible materials in the silo).

In a vacuum, the flame would not be contrained by air pressure and would speed out far more leaving even less to see.

And we can still see the damage to the lower stage and dust from the launch of the LM upper stage.
Click to expand...

Are you blind as well as stupid. There is loads of smoke and a very visible flame. Air does not react with the combustion and has no effect. I can see the flame clearly and the launch was in bright sunlight. The Apollo was in semi dark light.
 
How many does this jackass need to see

launch of titan 2 missile - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.
www.bing.com www.bing.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the minute man missile.https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=launch+of+titan+2+missile&mid=7761B8257865CEA537ED7761B8257865CEA537ED&FORM=VIRE
 
It is disgraceful that other posters will not accept the obvious that hypergolic rocket motors
emit smoke and flame. The lefties are deluded and Kangal cannot accept he was made a fool of

launch of titan 2 missile - Search Videos

Watch videos instantly on Bing—enjoy direct playback, discover related clips, and dive into trending content all in one place.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
 
Kangal said:
Step outside. Hike up a mountain. (I've been to Everest Base Camp, I guarantee you the air is thinner).

If the atmosphere was inside a container, then air pressure and air density would be constant everywhere as you ascend.
Click to expand...
Gas pressure gradient is possible in a container. Gas pressure gradient requires a container, because without the container there would be nothing for the gas to press against to create the gradient.

valamhic said:
Thus fuckin cunt is raving, no one ever mentioned gravitational fields
Click to expand...
Your buddy Kangal brought up gravitational fields, and you even quoted his post:

Kangal said:
Gravity affects gases in several ways:
  1. Density stratification: In a gravitational field, gases tend to stratify based on their density, with heavier gases settling towards the bottom and lighter gases rising towards the top. This is known as density stratification or buoyancy.
  2. Pressure variation: Gravity also affects the pressure of gases. In a gravitational field, the pressure of a gas decreases with height, as the weight of the gas above exerts less pressure on the gas below.
  3. Atmospheric effects: Gravity plays a crucial role in shaping the Earth's atmosphere. The gravitational force of the Earth holds the atmosphere in place, preventing it from escaping into space. Gravity also causes the atmosphere to be denser at lower altitudes and thinner at higher altitudes.
And we see all these effects.
Click to expand...
valamhic said:
What has this to do with the topic. Do you believe the film of the ascent module lifting off the moon in Apollo 15 and 17 is real or fake?
Click to expand...
 
So at l
Hermit said:
Gas pressure gradient is possible in a container. Gas pressure gradient requires a container, because without the container there would be nothing for the gas to press against to create the gradient.


Your buddy Kangal brought up gravitational fields, and you even quoted his post:
Click to expand...
So long last I know what you are saying, You are saying that a hypergolic rocket motor working under load in a vacuum emits no flame visible to the human eye at all and the smoke generated escapes onto surrounding area that in such a way that it cannot be observed.

The flame you say cannot be seen ever when looking up from below.

Am I correct in my analysis of your claims?
 
Kangal said:
The smoke is not actually from the exhaust directly. As the rocket rises you can see the flame peter out and dissipate.

Here's another example.


View: https://youtu.be/tRXSa8AadYU?si=f3uEVOzMDNkox0CH


After the initial dust and smoke there's actually very little smoke from the engines themselves.

And these are far more powerful than the LM ascent engine.
Click to expand...

That is not what the various videos of Titan 2 launched show. There is no visible flame or smoke from either of the 2 Apollo lunar ascent modules from their initial ignition to the last view after pitch over.
 
valamhic said:
So at l

So long last I know what you are saying, You are saying that a hypergolic rocket motor working under load in a vacuum emits no flame visible to the human eye at all and the smoke generated escapes onto surrounding area that in such a way that it cannot be observed.

The flame you say cannot be seen ever when looking up from below.

Am I correct in my analysis of your claims?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about rockets. I'm talking about the impossibility of the gas pressure which we have on earth existing next to a vacuum (space). Space is impossible, therefore all claims of going to the moon or space are false.
 
Hermit said:
I'm not talking about rockets. I'm talking about the impossibility of the gas pressure which we have on earth existing next to a vacuum (space). Space is impossible, therefore all claims of going to the moon or space are false.
Click to expand...
Right, well that needs to be discussed separately because I am juggling a few balls. So clarify if you agree on the basics. Air pressure is at 1 bar at sea level. Do you agree its pressure reduced with elevation?
 
Hermit says there is no such thing as space. There is air all between the earth and moon and around the sun, How can I argue with that
 

Latest Threads

Popular Threads

Back
Top Bottom