Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by debunky
I am curious:
How does this sit with the hoaxies?
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM


???
And he isn't afraid to get fried in the VA Belts?

Originally posted by FoosM
so all we can do is keep looking for inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions in the Apollo record. And plenty has been found.

Wrong again, none have been found.

You and JW with your very poor understanding of science, physics and how things actually work think you have found them, but as has been shown here you were always wrong.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Komodo
well.. right off the bat.. i see a problem..and how did the camera survive the re-entry ?? and the part it was attached to was burned up .. what am i missing here ?? and not only the camera ..but the FILM as well.. ??

The stage separation you see in that video happens at only 200,000 feet in altitude. That's still inside the atmosphere, so there is no "reentry" to survive. The film is in a camera pod that is jettisoned and and uses paraballoons to slow its fall. The first stage of the Saturn IB in that clip does not burn up.

well.. i don't know what cloud your on there.. but, i just got dish network and i can see the ENTIRE earth from just 22k ft.........so where's the 200k atmosphere ?? LOL

try again shall we ??

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
so all we can do is keep looking for inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions in the Apollo record. And plenty has been found.

Wrong again, none have been found.

You and JW with your very poor understanding of science, physics and how things actually work think you have found them, but as has been shown here you were always wrong.

Tell me, how soon after the LM docked with the CM, during the translunar coast, did the astronauts open up the hatch to inspect the LM?

Originally posted by debunky
I am curious:
How does this sit with the hoaxies?
en.wikipedia.org...

Pricing has been announced at US$100 million per seat. This mission will utilize two Russian launch vehicles. One Soyuz capsule will be launched into low-earth orbit by a Soyuz rocket.

I'd be a bit concerned paying $100 million to let Russians take me to the Moon considering Russia has NEVER put a man on the Moon...

reply to post by Komodo

well.. i don't know what cloud your on there.. but, i just got dish network and i can see the ENTIRE earth from just 22k ft.........so where's the 200k atmosphere ?? LOL

try again shall we ??

Well that's odd because at 22,000' you can see the horizon at around 180 miles..
Each way gives you 360 miles..
The ENTIRE Earth is 360 miles diameter.????

Is the space adventures-flight using this trajectory, or will the choose a time when the moon isn't over the north pole, Foosm?

Originally posted by debunky
Is the space adventures-flight using this trajectory, or will the choose a time when the moon isn't over the north pole, Foosm?

It's mainly a Russian enterprise..
Considering they have NEVER landed a man on the Moon, who knows.

Actually space adventures is based in the US.
Are you trying to say russians wouldnt be crazy enough to fly when the moon is over the north pole?

Originally posted by debunky
Actually space adventures is based in the US.
Are you trying to say russians wouldnt be crazy enough to fly when the moon is over the north pole?

What are you going on about??
Moon over the North Pole.????

look at FoosMs graphic: The moon is over the north pole.

Originally posted by debunky
look at FoosMs graphic: The moon is over the north pole.

does this help:



or



or this

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by debunky
look at FoosMs graphic: The moon is over the north pole.

does this help:



or



or this

I am confused FoosM...
What is wrong with the graphic, you presented earlier, and stated was a good representation of the Apollo trajectory?
Edit to add:
Actually the animation agrees with your diagram. The moon is just too close, since it obviously doesn't hit the earth in reality when it passes over the north and south poles.

reply to post by FoosM

DJ, you had ample opportunity to go through my evidence when I brought this up a few pages ago.
I gave my reasonings why, and explained how I thought these cameras were modified. Best you go back and read so we can move this conversation along if you something new to add.

Yes. You made up a little story in your head but provided no evidence to support it.

Nat has brought up some evidence that the cameras could take additional speeds than the 250 and 125 setting. But I have asked him to determine if the long exposures setting was still included.

It is you who need to provide evidence that the cameras were modified in the fashion you have imagined, otherwise it is reasonable to assume that they were capable of long exposures.

Hassy, or Hassie is an accepted way of referring to Hasselblads in the camera community.
It is not derogatory. Unlike possibly the lumping of Canon and Nikon users into "Cannikons"
I dont care if you have pet names for your camera or not

Are you a member of that community, FoosM? Or a poser?

And Im sure you wont have any problems funding this adventure for JW correct?
JW has a special account you can use to donate money to

Funny... I thought Jarrah was able to purchase lunar soil simulant out of his own pocket. The microfiche shouldn't be that expensive..
.

reply to post by FoosM

But that wont happen, so all we can do is keep looking for inconsistencies, mistakes, contradictions in the Apollo record. And plenty has been found.

Wrong on both counts. First, you have never been able to show a contradiction in the record that was not of your own making. For example, you quoted Gene Cernan as saying that if he shaded his eyes and allowed them to dark adapt he could see stars. Then you turned around and claimed astronauts never mentioned seeing stars. That was only two pages ago. Second, I have given you two inexpensive tasks that you can easily accomplish that would provide positive evidence for your case:

1. Obtain photographs of the CSM in orbit while it was alledgedly on translunar coast.

2. Compare the starfields taken by the SIM bay stellar photography camera with those that would have been there in reality.

Obviously, there's no way I'd trust Jarrah with my money before he starts the project, but if he actually does it, I will re-imburse him, regardless of the outcome. Seriously. If Jarrah compares the stellar photographs with correctly calculated starfields, I'll paypal him the cost of the microfiche.

well the more i go do this NASA rabbit hole the longer and stranger it gets. and here's another to check out.. remember, their in a air-less invroment, meaning no oxygen..

So, as proper planning would have it, lets start the end and work backwards of sorts, with the men on the moon, in suits that are designed to hold oxygen, and scrub Carbon Dioxide.

using the info pasted below as a guide, i just don't see how they could have conducted their experiments on the moon for 8hrs at a shot, bouncing around, kicking rocks, etc, with such a small back packs. that's 16hrs of oxygen JUST for the experiments not to mention the 6 day journey!!!!

So, lets do the math...

Air consumed PER DAY (24hrs)=11,000 liters (2905.89gals) at rest (no activity) yep... that's ALOT of oxygen tanks, little over half of a tanker truck which can carry up to 5,000gals.

So, 144hrs x 11,000=1,584,000 liters (418,448.53 US gallons) of breathable oxygen just to get the men to moon and back with NO emergency back up tanks incase of accidents.

Now, if i was a medical doctor, I would double that just to ensure they would have plenty and running out of oxygen clearly shouldn't be an issue.

So, that's 3,168,000 Liters (836,897.06 US gallons) MAX for the trip. Now divide that by 5,000 for the tanks to store it into and we get .. 167 tanks of 5,000gals each..

What's strikingly odd is, I just DON"T see even see the 2/3 of tanks of oxygen needed (112 tanks @ 5,000gals ea) stored ANYWHERE on the LM~!!!!! Where are the tanks?? !~!!!! puz:

2nd, if anyone has ever completed a beginners course on scuba diving, I assure you, you'll get a quick idea about airless enviroments and the tanks that are required to help you breath. What's my point? Did the tanks of oxygen they used on the moon rated for 2hrs, 4hrs or 6hrs or 8hrs?(if there is such a thing) puz: Because the longer you're 'down' the bigger the tanks, or special gas will be needed and we're talk'n 1967ish tech.

If the tanks were rated for hourly (2-4 hours) use, what a hassle that would be, did they refill them, If they just refilled them, the time for the mission just increased expotentially !!! Since they would have have to,
1). Remove their suits in the harshest enviroment known to man, in the LM, some how, not sure if the LM was pressurized if so, wouldn't that require even more oxygen??
2). Remove the tanks from the suits, if at all possible...

If the tanks were just quick swap, where would all the empty tanks be stored?? Looking at the top down view and some 3D models of the LM, i just don't see where they would fit all those full and empty tanks?? Do you?

To me, the math & space just doesn't add up. The biggest question in my mind is, where's all the oxygen??




How much oxygen does a human breathe every day?

It really depends upon the person activeness and size.
"The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

The air that is inhaled is about 20-percent oxygen, and the air that is exhaled is about 15-percent oxygen, so about 5-percent of the volume of air is consumed in each breath and converted to carbon dioxide. Therefore, a human being uses about 550 liters of pure oxygen (19 cubic feet) per day.

A person who is exercising obviously uses a lot more oxygen than that. You could determine how much air is moving through your lungs by exhaling into a plastic bag of known volume at each breath and seeing how long it takes to fill the bag."
-health.howstuffworks.com
Source(s):
health.howstuffworks.com...

:

Originally posted by FoosM
Nat has brought up some evidence that the cameras could take additional speeds than the 250 and 125 setting. But I have asked him to determine if the long exposures setting was still included.

Indeed they were. On the Bulb setting, the shutter would stay open as long as the shutter release was depressed. The LOT switch, which was not present on the lunar data camera, was merely a convenience feature that allowed the shutter to be locked closed or open. It wasn't required to take a long manual exposure.

reply to post by Komodo


Good point Komodo!
Nasa obviously thinks we are all stupid.
They claim the stored 1.05 pound of Oxygen at 900 PSI in that cardboard backpack. They don't even give a number for the volume!
What where they like, stuffing oxygen in there? Folding it neatly to make more fit?
Of course, scuba divers should get 5, maybe 6 minutes out of their flasks if what you say is true.

Originally posted by Komodo
well.. i don't know what cloud your on there.. but, i just got dish network and i can see the ENTIRE earth from just 22k ft.........so where's the 200k atmosphere ?? LOL

try again shall we ??

What? I have no idea what you're saying. At 22,000 feet, you'd only be able to see about 180 miles in any direction. And what does that have to do with the density of the atmosphere at 200,000 feet?