Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM
With all the wisdom that NASA has accumulated over the years.
With the advancement of computers and materials. We should be
back on the moon in no time at all, right?
No time.

Sure, give them an acceptable budget and they will get on it in no time.

This thread has gone quiet btw because both you and backinblack are deliberately avoiding questions you cannot answer.

For example, you have been unable to explain why NASA would contradict themselves and produce tests which showed a crater being formed, then use fake footage without a crater. There's a logical disjunct here in that you selectively use NASA's evidence, but don't think about the logical consequences.

Back in black also has missed out my request that he do the 'basic math' he has been so quick to insult over. Now it appears he cannot do it, should I be quick to insult him?

I hope this thread does die under the weight of unanswered questions, and we start some actual discussion in new threads.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
With all the wisdom that NASA has accumulated over the years.
With the advancement of computers and materials. We should be
back on the moon in no time at all, right?
No time.

Sure, give them an acceptable budget and they will get on it in no time.

This thread has gone quiet btw because both you and backinblack are deliberately avoiding questions you cannot answer.

For example, you have been unable to explain why NASA would contradict themselves and produce tests which showed a crater being formed, then use fake footage without a crater. There's a logical disjunct here in that you selectively use NASA's evidence, but don't think about the logical consequences.

I answered that question.
If you didn't like the answer, I cant do anything about it.
But dont say I didnt answer the question. That does not help this conversation.
Irregardless, if I, or JW said that the LM would create a crater or not, you have an APOLLO astronaut stating that the LM would create a crater.
How do you account for this? How does NASA?

reply to post by exponent

This thread has gone quiet btw because both you and backinblack are deliberately avoiding questions you cannot answer.

BS, my questions are irrelevant to the thread discussion..
Grow up fool....

Originally posted by exponent

I hope this thread does die under the weight of unanswered questions, and we start some actual discussion in new threads.

Of course you do.
All the unanswered questions by Apollo defenders.
You dont want people to know about it.
But this thread wont die. Not yet.
Because new information is coming out by JW.
So stay tuned

Originally posted by FoosM
I answered that question.
If you didn't like the answer, I cant do anything about it.
But dont say I didnt answer the question. That does not help this conversation.

I'm sorry, but you dismissed the question without proper answer, just as you have with every question I have asked you. You do not get to determine who answered a question, as you provided no facts nor reasoning nor calculations nor evidence nor anything more than pure dismissal.

Irregardless, if I, or JW said that the LM would create a crater or not, you have an APOLLO astronaut stating that the LM would create a crater.
How do you account for this? How does NASA?

Exactly, how does NASA? How could they possibly fake a moon landing without adding in what was considered by some to be obvious, that the landing would create a huge crater?

How do you explain this?

Originally posted by backinblack
BS, my questions are irrelevant to the thread discussion..
Grow up fool....

Ah so when you want an answer from me you feel free to insult me until you get it. But when I ask for the same from you, you don't feel any obligation?

I guess that's a good example of the NASA hoax believers mindset: 'We are right, you are an idiot if you disagree, and you owe us answers'.

Also Foos I would love nothing more than for JWs videos to get more widely known, because his petty insults and constant arrogant attitude do more to discredit him than I ever could be bothered to try.

Originally posted by exponent

Back in black also has missed out my request that he do the 'basic math' he has been so quick to insult over. Now it appears he cannot do it, should I be quick to insult him?

Well lets get to the math.
Does this math make any sense?

First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let’s stick with psi.

Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.

Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!

The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low.

pseudoastro.wordpress.com...

reply to post by exponent

Exactly, how does NASA? How could they possibly fake a moon landing without adding in what was considered by some to be obvious, that the landing would create a huge crater?

How do you explain this?

Is that really an answer??
So we just accept NASA's word as with 100% of all evidence?
ALL coming from NASA..

that the landing would create a huge crater?

BTW, I would have accepted even a slight disturbance of the dust..
A "huge crater" wasn't necessary..

reply to post by exponent

Ah so when you want an answer from me you feel free to insult me until you get it. But when I ask for the same from you, you don't feel any obligation?

I guess that's a good example of the NASA hoax believers mindset: 'We are right, you are an idiot if you disagree, and you owe us answers'.

This thread is nothing but a star feast for debunkers..
I really don't care what you think..
I was right, you are wrong..
Now insult me some more and get some much needed stars..

Originally posted by backinblack
Is that really an answer??
So we just accept NASA's word as with 100% of all evidence?
ALL coming from NASA..

If you claim NASA faked something, but that they went against their own tests which you accept 100% then you have to explain why they did not replicate their tests exactly.

BTW, I would have accepted even a slight disturbance of the dust..
A "huge crater" wasn't necessary..

edit on 5-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Then watch the landing videos, you can see the dust being blown away, and such an effect cannot be reproduced outside of a near vacuum.

This thread is nothing but a star feast for debunkers..
I really don't care what you think..
I was right, you are wrong..
Now insult me some more and get some much needed stars..

Four people including me have shown you were not right, you in fact didn't even understand the basic physical principles behind the calculation. I would ideally love not to insult you and you'll notice I started off trying to have a normal discussion with you.

That changed when you decided that you knew better than us and could insult us at will, even though the calculations were then born out by independent observers, even though the calculations are first year physics if not before.

If you want to have this discussion then fine, suits me. You demanded I explain why gravity's effect was minimal, so I have done that. If the maths is so simple, why are you refusing now to do the exact same calculations in respect to the LEM?

If you are incapable of doing these calculations, why did you imply that they were basic? Seems an easy question.

Foos, i saw your quote but I wanted to reply to BIB first, I'll get on yours now, with the caveat that you still have failed to substantively answer a single question put to you by me.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FoosM
I answered that question.
If you didn't like the answer, I cant do anything about it.
But dont say I didnt answer the question. That does not help this conversation.

I'm sorry, but you dismissed the question without proper answer, just as you have with every question I have asked you.

Provide proof or offer an apology.

You do not get to determine who answered a question, as you provided no facts nor reasoning nor calculations nor evidence nor anything more than pure dismissal.

I dont get to determine when questions are answered?
But somehow you do?
Are you suggesting that you are superior to me?

Irregardless, if I, or JW said that the LM would create a crater or not, you have an APOLLO astronaut stating that the LM would create a crater.
How do you account for this? How does NASA?

Exactly, how does NASA?

So how you answer questions is to re-ask the questions?
I see.

How could they possibly fake a moon landing without adding in what was considered by some to be obvious, that the landing would create a huge crater?

How do you explain this?

I see the problem here.
YOU have to explain it.
Not me.
I dont believe they went to the moon, you do, so you have to explain all the anomalies, contradictions, discrepancies, lies, etc. concerning the moon landing.


My job, or task is to just point them out.
Like I did with Cernan:

Cernan claims they cut the engines to not create a crater (one that the LM could fall in) and not to have any back blast. So you have an astronaut that states the LM would create a crater.
Yet on the videos and transcripts the LMs land then their engines stop.
What is going on here? Did Cernan lie?

reply to post by FoosM


Right I don't even need to do the calculations. Here are the incorrect assumptions made.

1. Emission energy is the same as force
2. The LMs engine nozzle was placed directly on the surface at 1/3rd max thrust.

Neither of these are true. Your quote assumes both are. In reality the pressure would be substantially lowered by both the offset and the continued throttling down.

I found alternate sources for the power of the LM engine at 4700N to 28000N. This is a measure of force rather than energy, and so taking the same assumption the force on the ground would be 4700N / 3120 in² or 1.5N/in², or about 0.33 psi.

Significantly lower than was estimated. This was also biased high.

reply to post by exponent

Then watch the landing videos, you can see the dust being blown away, and such an effect cannot be reproduced outside of a near vacuum.

There was nothing in any moon pic to suggest ANY dust was blown away by descent engines..

Four people including me have shown you were not right, you in fact didn't even understand the basic physical principles behind the calculation. I would ideally love not to insult you and you'll notice I started off trying to have a normal discussion with you.

Go ahead mate, I say four people were wrong..

F=MG....If you want to argue that then I was wrong...

Originally posted by FoosM
Provide proof or offer an apology.

Easily done, from the same reply as you are asking the question in. Are you really not paying enough attention to notice you did just what you're asking for proof of, in your own post?

Originally posted by FoosM
I see the problem here.
YOU have to explain it.
Not me.
I dont believe they went to the moon, you do, so you have to explain all the anomalies, contradictions, discrepancies, lies, etc. concerning the moon landing.
My job, or task is to just point them out.

Et voila, your avoidance of questions explicitly justified by yourself. No apology needed.

Originally posted by FoosM
I dont get to determine when questions are answered?
But somehow you do?
Are you suggesting that you are superior to me?

Apparently I am superior when it comes to both answering question, as I have shown by answering your questions.

So how you answer questions is to re-ask the questions?
I see.

When you ignore a question that is important to making a simple point, then yes I will repeat the question until you answer it. This is different to questions I cannot answer in that I state that i cannot and why.

Like I did with Cernan:

Cernan claims they cut the engines to not create a crater (one that the LM could fall in) and not to have any back blast. So you have an astronaut that states the LM would create a crater.
Yet on the videos and transcripts the LMs land then their engines stop.
What is going on here? Did Cernan lie?

Who knows, or cares? They were throttling the engine down and began the shutoff process as the contact prongs hit the regolith. Whether they would have produced a crater if they had not throttled down is irrelevant, as they also would not have landed.

We're not here to try and debate the minutia of the power produced by the LM descent engine, only whether the moon landing was faked. Once again, if it was faked, can you give me any reason for NASA not to use the actual descent engine on an actual sample of regolith? Why wouldn't they actually do it in order to ensure there was no chance that any future calculations or experiments could prove that it was fake.

Originally posted by backinblack
There was nothing in any moon pic to suggest ANY dust was blown away by descent engines..

I said videos, feel free to watch the landing here: www.youtube.com...

You can see when they kick up dust, you can see how they hit engine stop as the contact prongs hit. Couldn't be simpler.

Go ahead mate, I say four people were wrong..

So let me get this right, you say that we were wrong, even though we used the formula you demanded we use, But you refuse to show any calculations to actually prove we were wrong? You don't see that as arrogance? What would you do if we took that attitude:

"You were wrong about the moon landing, I have secret calculations that prove it to be 100% true, but I won't show you?"

Would be quite silly wouldn't it? So why are you acting this way?

reply to post by exponent

Who knows, or cares? They were throttling the engine down and began the shutoff process as the contact prongs hit the regolith. Whether they would have produced a crater if they had not throttled down is irrelevant, as they also would not have landed.

Damn relevant point that you wish to pass over without a definitive answer..
Transcripts show they did NOT turn the engines off till after landing..

Facts are facts, answer them...

reply to post by exponent


F=MG... Right or wrong???
Real simple yes or no there...

reply to post by backinblack

F=MG

Huh??

What do you think those three letters symbolize? What terms, in English (and physics)?

(Oh....and, on a QWERTY keyboard, the 'A' and the 'G' are several keys apart....so "typo" won't fly as an 'excuse'.....)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

F=MG

Huh??
What do you think those three letters symbolize? What terms, in English (and physics)?
(Oh....and, on a QWERTY keyboard, the 'A' and the 'G' are several keys apart....so "typo" won't fly as an 'excuse'.....)

OK numb nuts..I'll make it simple..
FORCE = MASS X GRAVITY...

That easier for you??

Originally posted by backinblack
Damn relevant point that you wish to pass over without a definitive answer..
Transcripts show they did NOT turn the engines off till after landing..

Facts are facts, answer them...

No, the transcripts don't show that. As I have said twice already and linked you to a video over, they shut the engines down as the 'contact prongs' which extended several feet down from the landing pads touched the ground.

The engine would have then gradually throttled down as valves closed and residual fuel combusted.

F=MG... Right or wrong???

I have never disputed it, I used that calculation in the equations you seem to think are wrong. Why are you so insistent that I don't understand basic physics, when you can't even demonstrate why.