To The Moon

[valamhic]

See video post 599 earlier. Note how the legs should and did behave on all landings but not on Apollo. This is very good proof that Apollo was a fake. They should have dropped the lander on the set suddenly with a jerk to leave the marks but they left it down gently on a rope.

Note that the Chang'e 6 shows the surface as it comes in to land to have a shine. Like if you simmer custard of rice in a saucepan and let it cool. A slight skin will form. On the moon, settlement causes the similar effect over the long time frame of millions of years. There was none on Apollo because it was Portland cement poured over rocks with no settlement time.

 

[valamhic]

Dan should do a poll on who here believes it was a hoax.

 

[Hermit]

This is the latest image from Change 6. I think it is authentic and not computer generated. The camera is mounted on the lander where I would expect. Go to 48 seconds in and see the leg of the lander with its pad pressing down on the lunar soil. It is a colour image capturing the craft's coloured parts and there also appears to be black and white images. Note 2 things.

1)The colour is a tinge of brown red the same as in previous Chang'e images, but not in the
Apollo images. The Chang'e 6 appears to give black and white images also and they are grey. This means that all images from Apollo were grey when the colour ones should have been reddish brown.

2) The leg pad landed and it is like a spider's leg, as the craft pressed down the pad was pressed out and as the craft rebounded up to its equilibrium position it pulled the pad back. The disturbed soil is clear to see. Apollo had none of this despite the fact that it was the exact same principle and had 2 men on board for extra weight.

The ascent of Chang'e 6 in computer animation shows the exhaust flame from the engine, the
real image from Apollo showed no flame. Appollo was there fore a hoax.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNu887jBpSc

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.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

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.

China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced

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.

 

[valamhic]

What do yiz think of this? Wikileaks was never known to lie.


View: https://rumble.com/v4vline-wikileaks-releases-more-cut-scenes-from-moon-landing-.html

 

[valamhic]

View: https://rumble.com/v1ntyhu-moon-landing-hoax.html?playlist_id=watch-history

 

[valamhic]

They used helicopters to lift the crafts and wires from the roofs which were commonly used by Hollywood.

 

[valamhic]

China is notorious for its fake space videos. Most are very badly produced

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

 

[valamhic]

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

 

[Hermit]

Gas pressure is maintained on earth by the pull of gravity

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.

 

[valamhic]

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.

He's off the rocker again.

 

[valamhic]

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.

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?

 

[Professor]

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.

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

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"

 

[Hermit]

He's off the rocker again.

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.

Gravity affects gases in several ways

Prove it by practical demonstration. Baseless assertions about gravitational fields are not proof.

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

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"

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.

 

[Hermit]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

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.

Thus fuckin cunt is raving, no one ever mentioned gravitational fields

 

[valamhic]

Real.

So you accept it was said to be powered by a Hydrazine 50 rocket?

 

[valamhic]

It used a hypergolic combination of nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer and Aerozine 50, yes.

Why do you ask?

Do you believe that such a propellant can burn in a rocket leaving no smoke under it and emitting no flame from the nozzle whatsoever? https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...99FB48627EEF0BED7B7599FB48627EEF0BE&FORM=VIRE

 

[valamhic]

Rockets do work in a vacuum and the emit flame and smoke in the same way is in air.

rocket burning in a vacuum - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[valamhic]

In a vacuum, certainly.

But it certainly raised quite a lot of dust on ignition.

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?

 

[valamhic]

Wha

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

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"

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

 

[valamhic]

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

Show us where and when methanol was used as a propellant in the Apollo missions? This is the first I heard of it. Moreover this video is in air, 20% oxygen. Totally different.

 

[valamhic]

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.

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.

 

[valamhic]

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

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

Here is the minute man missile.https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=launch+of+titan+2+missile&mid=7761B8257865CEA537ED7761B8257865CEA537ED&FORM=VIRE

 

[valamhic]

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

 

[Hermit]

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.

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.

Thus fuckin cunt is raving, no one ever mentioned gravitational fields

Your buddy Kangal brought up gravitational fields, and you even quoted his post:

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.

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]

The exhaust in a vacuum can be a different shape, but it is still there.

What does the exhaust plume of a rocket look like in vacuum?

There are plenty of photos of rocket tests and launches in atmosphere, and in these the exhaust plume tends to be a long thin flame. Is this true for when rocket engines operate in a vacuum? My gu...

space.stackexchange.com

 

[valamhic]

So at l

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:

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?

 

[valamhic]

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.

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.