It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 108
29
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by Skeptic from Holland

Before all, thanks to Skeptic from Holland for his brilliant argumentations.


Thank you.


btw, I'm a girl


Hi, skeptic from Holland

Finally another intelligent person.


Originally posted by jfj123
scepticfriend wrote,

5 LLRV - 3 destroyed in crashes.
3 LLTV - 2 destroyed in crashes.


OK so you are using these facts to argue other facts. But wait, you said they couldn't fly but you're saying you believe they crashed to support another argument. They couldn't crash if they couldn't fly.

OOPS !!!


"...you're saying you believe they crashed to support another argument".

We human beings have many intelligences, mathematical, musical, motory, logical, pictorial and so on.

I think you have a lack of logical intelligence.

LEMs don't fly, can't move in all directions and land going backwards MANUALLY controlled with a JOYSTICK, as Armstrong did.

If 6 LEMs had REALLY gone to the moon, at least 4 would have had to crash according to statistics.

REAL MOON LANDING IS NOT A VIDEO GAME PRODUCED BY NASA JOKERS WITH THE HELP OF DISNEY STUDIO.

About stars, NASA jokers excluded them because it's impossible to put realistic stars in bidimensional scenographic backgrounds.




However…

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

www.youtube.com...

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.


Yeah, going to the moon was really dangerous. Nobody said it wasn't. In actuality, the lander had a 50/50 chance of lifting up off the moon. So the astronauts knew there was a 50 percent chance they would die on the moon. I know you are going to apply today's safety measures and say those odds would never fly but they didn't apply today's safety measures because it wasn't today, it was 1969.


However…

I like above all skepticfriends enthusiasm and excitement trying to disprove THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

I LOVE SO MUCH skepticalfriends EUPHORIA.





posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
...

Yeah, going to the moon was really dangerous. Nobody said it wasn't. In actuality, the lander had a 50/50 chance of lifting up off the moon. So the astronauts knew there was a 50 percent chance they would die on the moon. I know you are going to apply today's safety measures and say those odds would never fly but they didn't apply today's safety measures because it wasn't today, it was 1969.

...


Don't change the argumentation.

Confute my reasoning if you can.

How could NASA buffoons spend for 4 moon buggies and few other testing

vehicle so much money that they would have been able to buy 15,200 golf

carts?

Then NASA buffoons have grown rich with these fake contracts.

They have cashed 38,000,000 USD and spent at the most 50,000-100,000

USD.

NASA buffoons seem stupid but about money they reason right.




posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
Don't change the argumentation.

Confute my reasoning if you can.

How could NASA buffoons spend for 4 moon buggies and few other testing

vehicle so much money that they would have been able to buy 15,200 golf

carts?


as you asked

1 - tyres - rubber cased pneumatic tyres would explode in vaccum and the rubber casing would fail at the temperatures encontered

the LRV used a unique purpose designed tyre / wheel assembly requiring costly design from scratch - unique tooling / manufacture and resting

2 - batteries the lead accid accumulators used in golf carts must have a vent to the atmosphere - in vaccum they would boil away the acid - and be rendered useless , also the energy denisity of a wet plate cell is too low for the power demands of the LRV

the LRV batteries were zinc silver chemistry - at the time the most expensive and higest energy denisty types availiable - and the most expensive , despite the purpose built construction - during APPOLO operations they still exceded reccomended temperature limits - BUT as they were so well engineered and tested that they continued to function

3 - chassis mass and stowed dimensions - the golf cart is built cheaply using steel and plastics - these are too heavy , would fail at the temperatures encountered

golfcarts cannot be folded - so would take up too much room in the LEM lower section

the LRV was built from titanium and alloys - and would fold down to the smallest stowed package possible

4 - anncillary equimpent - the golf cart does not have the comminications , navigation , life support & scientific equiment required by APPOLO crews

every peice of equiment had to be built from scratch or HEAVILY modified to protect it from the pressure and thermal stress & radiation , ensure its reliability and redundant capacity were adequate

add to all of this the spares [ back ups incase of damage in testing / loadin etc tec ] , training equiment , test equiment and facilities .

there is your $38 million final invoice total - bear in mind that the LRV was built by a PRIVATE company - that was required to operate at a profit

so ALL the R&D costs and unique tooling required were passed to NASA - as they could not be used for any other puropse - and the limited production run [ 6 proposed , 4 delivered ] meant that there was no " ecconomy of scale " accrued from production line manufacture and mass production

your car costs the reasonable price it does because the company spreads R&D cost over the entire production run - which can run to over a million units ,

if your car was one of only 4 ever built - then the cost would be astronomical < pun >

so once again you are wrong

PS - i no longer have the time to answer such willfull stupidity - so unless you present some rational and NEW arguments , your further idiocy will go unanswered

you are a troll - feeding you is pointless - you simply do not wish to learn



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...

1 - tyres - rubber cased pneumatic tyres would explode in vaccum and the rubber casing would fail at the temperatures encontered

the LRV used a unique purpose designed tyre / wheel assembly requiring costly design from scratch - unique tooling / manufacture and resting
...


en.wikipedia.org...



Psig (pound-force per square inch gauge) is a unit of pressure relative to atmospheric pressure at sea level. By contrast, psi measures pressure relative to a vacuum (such as that in space). Most pressure gauges, such as tire gauges, are calibrated to read zero at sea level, because most applications require the difference of pressure.

At sea level, Earth's atmosphere actually exerts a pressure of 14.695948804 psi (see below). Humans do not feel this pressure because internal pressure of liquid in their bodies matches the external pressure. If a pressure gauge is calibrated to read zero in space, then at sea level on Earth it would read 14.695948804 psi. Thus a reading of 30 psig on a tire gauge, represents an absolute pressure of 44.695948804 psi.

Psi is often used incorrectly instead of psig.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Go to pag. 205



Visually inspect in accordance with Section 8.1.1. Repair, using conventional commercial tire techniques. For most operations inflate the tire to 30 psig - approximately 13.9 inch rolling radius (as measured from the hub center to the operating surface). Do not exceed 40 psig. Air pressure may be reduced for soft soil operation.


Without atmosphere pressure pneumatic tires would have exploded on the Moon, dear imbeciles of this thread.






posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...

1 - tyres - rubber cased pneumatic tyres would explode in vaccum and the rubber casing would fail at the temperatures encontered

the LRV used a unique purpose designed tyre / wheel assembly requiring costly design from scratch - unique tooling / manufacture and resting
...


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Go to pag. 205



Visually inspect in accordance with Section 8.1.1. Repair, using conventional commercial tire techniques. For most operations inflate the tire to 30 psig - approximately 13.9 inch rolling radius (as measured from the hub center to the operating surface). Do not exceed 40 psig. Air pressure may be reduced for soft soil operation.


Without atmosphere pressure pneumatic tires would have exploded on the Moon, dear imbeciles of this thread.



ok - first off read what i said - i never claimed that a tyre would explode without atmospheric pressure

i said a ruber cased pneumatic tyre would fail - if you are too dammed dumb to note the subtle difference - thats your problem not mine

i am going to have to explain this - notice how rubber is stiff in cold temperatures and more flecible at hi temps ??? noticed how racing cars warm the tyres up ???

the mechanical properties of rubber are very temperature sensetive - and a conventional tyre - like the ones on your golf cart - remember your last stupid claim -???

thats what i was speciffically replying to - the reasons normal typres would not be sutible

thats why the special wheel assembly was developed - do you get it yet ????

and second - now we are mentioning imbiciles - re read the PDF - you have quoted [ page 205 ] the section relating to the LRV trainer - used on earth , thats how chuffing dumb you are - yup the trainer vehicle - it used std auto tyres - if you read the dammed document you quoted that would be blindingly obvious

who is the imbicile ?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by jfj123
...

Yeah, going to the moon was really dangerous. Nobody said it wasn't. In actuality, the lander had a 50/50 chance of lifting up off the moon. So the astronauts knew there was a 50 percent chance they would die on the moon. I know you are going to apply today's safety measures and say those odds would never fly but they didn't apply today's safety measures because it wasn't today, it was 1969.

...


Don't change the argumentation.

Confute my reasoning if you can.

How could NASA buffoons spend for 4 moon buggies and few other testing

vehicle so much money that they would have been able to buy 15,200 golf

carts?

Then NASA buffoons have grown rich with these fake contracts.

They have cashed 38,000,000 USD and spent at the most 50,000-100,000

USD.

NASA buffoons seem stupid but about money they reason right.



Well I'm not a golf cart expert but I would assume that golf carts are different from moon buggies (this is sarcasm). I don't know if golf carts existed as they do now with the same technology. I don't know if golf carts of the time were built rugged enough to go to the moon. I don't know what "confuted is".

I do know research into building new technologies is EXPENSIVE.
I do konw that you don't know the answers to any of the above questions.

Here's an analogy regarding the moonbuggy vs golf cart idea.

ATTENTION: Analogy below. This is just an analogy. ATTENTION
If you need to move 100 cubic yards of gravel, you could use a wheel barrow but wouldn't a gravel hauler work better?



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
To give you a real idea of what you can purchase through 38,000,000 USD go to this site:

www.museumofaviation.org...



SPECIFICATIONS

Wingspan: 35 ft. 10 in.
Length: 29 ft. 4 in.
Height: 8 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 58,000 lbs.
Engines: (2) General Electric J85s of 2,400 lbs. thrust each
Max. Speed: 485 mph
Range: 270 miles with 3,000 lb. load
Service Ceiling: 36,000 ft.

Cost: $161,000


38,000,000 : 161,000 = 236 Cessna Dragonfly.

If we put them side to side, we can get a row 2,818 yard long.


And some imbeciles of this thread say that 38,000,000 USD for few moon

buggies are normal.


What do you have in your brain? Sawdust?





posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


that is the second hand cost for a military surplus airframe - it does NOT represent its true cost

you really are a twit .



[edit on 11-10-2007 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
To give you a real idea of what you can purchase through 38,000,000 USD go to this site:

www.museumofaviation.org...



SPECIFICATIONS

Wingspan: 35 ft. 10 in.
Length: 29 ft. 4 in.
Height: 8 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 58,000 lbs.
Engines: (2) General Electric J85s of 2,400 lbs. thrust each
Max. Speed: 485 mph
Range: 270 miles with 3,000 lb. load
Service Ceiling: 36,000 ft.

Cost: $161,000


38,000,000 : 161,000 = 236 Cessna Dragonfly.

If we put them side to side, we can get a row 2,818 yard long.


And some imbeciles of this thread say that 38,000,000 USD for few moon

buggies are normal.


What do you have in your brain? Sawdust?




So now you're saying that the government over paid for something??? Well that never happens......wait for it.......wait for it......ok he's not going to get it.
Ever hear of the government paying $100.00 for a screw driver, $500.00 for a toilet seat, etc??? Unfortunately, that happens.

So now you think that since they paid too much for the moon buggies, they didn't go to the moon? What wonderful logic you have



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Don't feign you haven't understood.



www.museumofaviation.org...



The A-37A was modified from the standard T-37B primary trainer to evaluate the design as a counter-insurgency (COIN) attack/reconnaissance aircraft. It was first flown in September 1963...
The aircraft continued in USAF service with the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve until the 1980s.


The price of this airplane is referred to years close to 1969.

By 38,000,000 USD NASA buffoons would have been able to purchase 236 Cessna

Dragonfly.

If we put them side to side, we can get a row 2,818 yard long.

That is to say it is IMPOSSIBLE, FAKED, INVENTED that few moon buggies

would have cost like 236 airplanes as those I have shown.

Also AL CAPONE felt because of a question of money: tax evasion.









[edit on 12-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
Don't feign you haven't understood.



www.museumofaviation.org...



The A-37A was modified from the standard T-37B primary trainer to evaluate the design as a counter-insurgency (COIN) attack/reconnaissance aircraft. It was first flown in September 1963...
The aircraft continued in USAF service with the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve until the 1980s.


The price of this airplane is referred to years close to 1969.

By 38,000,000 USD NASA buffoons would have been able to purchase 236 Cessna

Dragonfly.

If we put them side to side, we can get a row 2,818 yard long.

That is to say it is IMPOSSIBLE, FAKED, INVENTED that few moon buggies

would have cost like 236 airplanes as those I have shown.

Also AL CAPONE felt because of a question of money: tax evasion.




[edit on 12-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]


So now you are saying that the moonlanding was faked because:
Who would pay so much for moonbuggies"?
So over paying for something makes it fake?
So gas isn't real?
My truck isn't real?
My house isn't real?
CRAP. I bought a whole bunch of fake stuff. Well I am not happy. No sir, not happy at all...
What am I going to do now???

Hey anybody wanna buy a bunch of fake stuff??? It's overprices to sell !!!!!




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
...
So over paying for something makes it fake?
So gas isn't real?
My truck isn't real?
My house isn't real?
...


Have you paid for your gas, your truck and your house 38,000,000 USD?


They have swindled you, YOU MUST PROTEST.







[edit on 13-10-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by jfj123
...
So over paying for something makes it fake?
So gas isn't real?
My truck isn't real?
My house isn't real?
...


Have you payed for your gas, your truck and your house 38,000,000 USD?


They have swindled you, YOU MUST PROTEST.



Over paying is over paying. Paying too much for something doesn't make it fake it makes it unfortunate. RREEEEEAAAAALLLLLYYYYYY big difference.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
...

Over paying is over paying. Paying too much for something doesn't make it fake it makes it unfortunate. RREEEEEAAAAALLLLLYYYYYY big difference.




If you pay $500,000 for a house that is worth $250,000 you are

unfortunate.

But if you pay for that house $100,000,000 you are a greatest imbecile.




posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by jfj123
...

Over paying is over paying. Paying too much for something doesn't make it fake it makes it unfortunate. RREEEEEAAAAALLLLLYYYYYY big difference.




If you pay $500,000 for a house that is worth $250,000 you are

unfortunate.

But if you pay for that house $100,000,000 you are a greatest imbecile.



Well thats government spending for you


There have been articles about the government paying $500.00 for a $10.00 hammer.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I would like the "pro-hoax" camp to explain how the mirrors got there.

You can't say an unmanned rocket sent them, because the Apollo 11 mission took pictures of it on the moon.

The mirrors are still being used, today, so there is tangible and credible (as in not from NASA) evidence of artifacts left on the moon by apollo 11


here is a link to the observatory that is still using the mirrors
external link


here is the pic taken by apollo 11




I eagerly await your reasoned explanation, complete with facts to back up your theory



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

I would like the "pro-hoax" camp to explain how the mirrors got there.

...




Don't change argument.

Is it normal for you that few moon buggies cost like 236 airplanes as

these:





Is there really no one here that agree with me?





posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

I would like the "pro-hoax" camp to explain how the mirrors got there.

...




Don't change argument.

Is it normal for you that few moon buggies cost like 236 airplanes as

these:





Is there really no one here that agree with me?




don't change argument ? I was expecting more, oh well, I guess when reason and logic are against you, you have to resort to nonsense like quibbling over budget items


OK here's another one for you. NASA employed 400,000 people during the apollo years. How many, SPECIFICALLY do you think were invloved in the hoax ? Can you also elaborate on their names, and what departments they worked in ?

thanks



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

I would like the "pro-hoax" camp to explain how the mirrors got there.

...




Don't change argument.

Is it normal for you that few moon buggies cost like 236 airplanes as

these:





Is there really no one here that agree with me?




Nobody has changed the discussion, just added to it. He has a valid point. The discussion is whether or not the Apollo landing was a hoax and his point leads to the fact that it wasn't and he has supplied proof.

And NO no one agrees with you.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
...
OK here's another one for you. NASA employed 400,000 people during the apollo years. How many, SPECIFICALLY do you think were invloved in the hoax ? Can you also elaborate on their names, and what departments they worked in ?

thanks




Yes, they were the famous 400,000 TBCHOTH (the biggest crap headed of the history).





Originally posted by syrinx high priest
...
The mirrors are still being used, today, so there is tangible and credible (as in not from NASA) evidence of artifacts left on the moon by apollo 11
...


science.nasa.gov...



Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," HE MARVELS.


HE MARVELS,

in fact only a marvel could get a telescope to intercept JUST A SINGLE PHOTON.






new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join