Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Where's the water ?

reply to post by sputniksteve
 



See what you think of this sputniksteve....

LM descent fuel is Aerozine which is 50% by weight hydrazine and 50% unsymmetrical dimethylhaydrazine. The oxidizer is dinitrogen tetroxide

As best I can tell at this point, the total descent stage propellant mass was alleged to have been 8,200 kg .

en.wikipedia.org...

From the above I found;


"Descent stage........

• Height minus landing probes: 8.59 ft (2.62 m)
• Width/depth minus landing gear: 12.83 ft (3.91 m)
• Width/depth including landing gear: 31.0 ft (9.4 m)
• Mass including fuel: 22,783 lb (10,334 kg)
• Water: one 151 kg (330 lb) storage tank
• DPS propellant mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg)
• DPS thrust: 10,125 lbf (45,040 N), throttleable between 10% and 60% of full thrust
• DPS propellants: Aerozine 50 / nitrogen tetroxide
• DPS pressurant: one 49-pound (22 kg) supercritical helium tank at 1,555 psi (10.72 MPa)
• DPS specific impulse: 311 s (3,050 N·s/kg)
• DPS delta-V: 8,100 ft/s (2,500 m/s)
• Batteries: four (Apollo 9-14) or five (Apollo 15-17) 28–32 V, 415 A·h silver-zinc batteries; 135 lb (61 kg) each"


So, I will run my first set of numbers using a propellant total weight; Aerozine AND dinitrogen tetroxide oxidizer of 8,200 kg



So 8,200 kg is for BOTH the Aerozine 50 and the nitrogen tetroxide. At least until I turn up better numbers, if iI ever do.

The molecular weight of dinitrogen tetroxide is 92 grams per mole.

The molecular weight of hydrazine is 32 grams per mole.

The molecular weight of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine is 60 grams per mole.

Our reactions are;

1) 2N2H4 + N2O4 > 3N2 + 4H20

2) (CH3)2N2H2 + 2N2O4 > 2 CO2 + 3N2 + 4H2O

This looks like straightforward stoichiometry. I'll treat it that way until I find a snag somewhere. At first blush, this does not appear like it will be the case.

For every 120 grams of Aerozine, one would have 1 mole(60 grams by weight) of the unsymmetrical hydrazine and 1.875 moles(60 grams by weight) of the hydrazine. To react 60 grams/one mole of the unsymmetrical hydrazine would require 2 moles of the dinitrogen tetroxide. This amounts to 184 grams of the "oxidizer". To react 60 grams/1.875 moles of the hydrazine would require 0.9375 moles of the dintrogen tetroxide, or 86.25 grams of the same.

So 120 grams of Aerozine requires 270.25 grams of oxidizer for its hypergolic burning. Assuming I was correct in my proposing that the 8,200 kg of descent propellent is Aerozine and dinitrogen tetroxide in an optimal straightforward stoichiometric ratio, then this 8,200 kg of hypergolic fuel/oxidizer is 120/(120+270.25)= 31% Aerozine and 69% dinitrogen tetroxide by weight. As best I can determine at this time , were any of this real, the oxidizer would have weighed a bit more than twice as much as the Aerozine.

So one then has for 8,200 kg of LM descent fuel; 31% by weight that is the Aerozine=2542 kg, and 69% by weight or 5658 kg that is the weight of the dinitrogen tetroxide.

For each 60 grams of unsymmetric hydrazine "burned" one has 4 moles of H2O generated or 4 X 18 = 72 grams of water. For every 60 grams of hydrazine "burned" there would be 3.75 moles of H2O produced or 3.75 X 18 = 67.5 grams of H2O. Sum it up and one finds for every 120 grams of Aerozine burned 139.5 grams of H20 are created as a product of the hypergolic reaction.


139.5/120=1.1625

Assuming a LM would begin with 8,200 kg of fuel/oxidizer for descent, and 2542 kg of this were Aerozine, then 2542 X 1.1625 = 2955 kg of H20 would be created during the descent. That's 2,955 liters or 2,955/3.785 = 780 gallons of water.

Just to work with some numbers to get started, I'll say the LM's engine burned for 13 minutes and 20 seconds. It did not fire evenly the whole way in the alleged landing scenario, but say it did, just to get a rough sense as to how much water is being produced; 13 X 60 + 20 is 800 seconds of burn time. 780 gallons of H2O made , so almost a gallon a second, 780/800= 0.976 gallons per second.

So were this real, there would be a fair amount of water being sprayed on the rocks. Why doesn't anyone report this ? Surface water from rocks collected near the ship ?

Neil Armstrong himself said it was hotter than boiling water in the sun. This is an important point to consider in all of this.

Should we be expected to find traces of exhaust water ? At this point, I honestly do not know ......

But I am suspicious about all this. The walking away from the LM. 16 mm aside, the NOT COLLECTING THE CONTINGENCY SAMPLE RIGHT AWAY, and then collecting it out of view ??

Is this a reason as to why the Apollo 11 astronauts don't document the sites from where they claimed to have collected the stones ? Might a thoughtful geologist have busted them ?


WHERE'S THE WATER ???




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


pretending to be a chemist now??

all of that work for what?? to be brought down with one simple question


WHERE'S THE WATER ???


you obviously have no clue what a near vacuum does to heated water.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

WOW, it just dawned on me, that was probably a royal waste of time, the chemistry stuff



But sure was fun.

Perhaps the "solution" is much easier. The 16mm and tv films would be expected to match up EXACTLY. At least i believe this to be the solution.

Armstrong has to walk out of the tv field of view because the 16 mm from the LM vantage series of shots/semi-video and the tv video weren't taken together, were not take simultaneously, so there would have been chop busting potential.

HEY NEIL, HOW COME YOU ARE DOIN' TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE 16 MM SHOTS AND THE TV SHOTS ?

I'll need to review the 16 mm shots to be sure this would have been the case/be a good explanation. It has been a while since i looked at those 16 mm pics. Cannot quite recall the perspective.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Perhaps the "solution" is much easier. The 16mm and tv films would be expected to match up EXACTLY. At least i believe this to be the solution.


And it does:

vimeo.com...

Edit to add: And stop trying to suck up to sputniksteve. He can already see you're a fraud.
edit on 30-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I think it is worth seeing some of the responses this guy has received from people on other forums. At least he is consistant:




Oh. hello. another wall of pointless text which provides nothing. Your continuous baseless claims bring us precisely nowhere. Just for a change, try answering the questions posed.





PattyD , the longer you go on not answering questions the lower your credibility goes.





I wonder: at what point does engaging this guy amount to exploiting for our own amusement someone who is clearly not well? How uncomfortable should I be with all this?





Quote: it is all FAKE, and confirmed so!
No, we've merely found another set of topics that you don't know anything about, can't get the facts straight on, and can't help shooting your mouth off about.





All those previous posts have been exhaustively and repeatedly debunked, exposing your colossal ignorance in the process. You just pretend those rebuttals don't exist.


...can't wait for him to start the Saturn-V thread. Check out this page for some serious "ignorant fool vs expert" exchanges.
edit on 30-5-2012 by mrwiffler because: ohhh



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Sorry, can't help myself...these are beautiful:




If there is "incontrovertable evidence of/for" fraud, I haven't seen any from you. I've seen lots of handwaving, lots of "I don't see why this would happen, therefore it is evidence of fraud," and even more of "I don't actually have any qualifications to assess any of this, but I've got it into my head that Apollo is fake, so I will disregard anything anybody tells me that doesn't support my pet belief."





You don't know what the word "prove" means do you? A problem with a rocket that the engineers know they can fix is certainly NOT proof of anything fake, no matter how many times you repeat it without paying attention to your answers.





Your cavalier misunderstanding of relevant facts, your ignorance of the applicable sciences, your commission of elementary errors, and your inattention to your critics' responses would hardly qualify your overall argument as even remotely credible.





Nor will this be the first (or even the second, third, or fourth) time you've been entirely mistaken about LM guidance and control. Keep in mind that you come to this discussion with a huge degree of "fail" behind you on this topic.





Patrick claims, on the one hand, that NASA was incapable of launching a rocket, with 3 astronauts inside, capable of reaching the moon. OK, an unevidenced claim. Patrick also claims that NASA launched a mission which was entirely capable of remotely, by automation, capable of landing on the moon and deploying military hardware. Another unevidenced claim. I leave it to any readers to spot the incongruity.


There are hundreds of pages of this.
edit on 30-5-2012 by mrwiffler because: aefhe



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Honestly I didn't read your last 3 posts filled with chemistry and numbers because it would mean nothing to me. None of it answers the question of "Why would they travel 238,900 just to pick up contaminated rocks?"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Exhaust products/H2O reconsidered

reply to post by decisively
 


Not a bedrock issue as regards Apollo Inauthenticity, not yet anyway, but worth kicking around a bit more.

Aerozine/dinitrogen tetroxide yields water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The latter of course is absolutely inert, no play there. Probably ditto for carbon dioxide. Off the top of my head, can't think of a way here to play CO2 as an hypergolic exhaust component to our advantage. BUT THE WATER, that may be a different story.

As the LM comes down, whatever is under it, and for a long distance down sun is now in shadow. As the "temperature" of under the sun lunar soil can rise to 107 degrees centigrade, were water to "hit" that, it would heat up and float away. That said, we don't know with any certainty, not yet anyway, how hot the lunar soil would be at "that time of day" on the moon. It may not be 107 degrees centigrade. May take a while for it to get that hot, reach a "steady state". Regardless, H2O hitting hot soil and "vaporizing" in the sense hot water might escape from gravity's weak pull there on the lunar surface, would of course radiate its heat away, right away, were it to find some shade. Any cooling/radiating H2O up in a patch of SHADED super thin lunar atmosphere would float back down.

Shaded lunar soil will fall to a temp of MINUS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DEGREES OR THERE ABOUTS once its energy/heat has radiated away"

So, the H20 of Aerozine 50 "combustion" is going to be very hot, but in an imagined LM shadow, it would radiate away its heat/energy in short order. The shaded lunar soil under the lander begins to cool immediately, soon as it is in shadow it begins to lose its heat. So we may have something in this scenario, with space cold Aerozine exhaust water hitting a shaded and now cooling lunar surface.

Armstrong said no blast crater, but some "rays", something or other like that. Will have to review the exact language Armstrong used, but he referenced evidence of engine activity/EXHAUST IMPACT . This water would have been very hot initially AND THEN COOLED IMMEDIATELY COMING OUT IN THE SHADE UNDER THE LM and impacting a cooling shaded lunar surface.

I like this angle, kind of fun to play with.

Not sure it can be worked to some concrete fruition in the way some of our other points have been ever so successfully. But very important to press on and explore all the new possibilities.

Should water from Aerozine "combustion"/hypergolic fuel/rocket exhaust in fairly large quantity have been detected ON/IN some of the lunar rocks alleged to have been returned from the moon ?

The answer may well be yes. And is certainly worth exploring more. If nothing else, the relevant chemistry and physics issues/problems/concerns and the focused study they so motivate, may lead us to other "problems" with the official story, if not directly, then indirectly. It really is worth pressing on here and exploring this.

edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "shaded lunar soil will fall to a temp of MINUS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DEGREES OR THERE ABOUT once it energy/heat has radiated away"
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling, spacing



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

My point is, looking at exhaust products, one may be able to catch the perpetrators in a lie

reply to post by sputniksteve
 


For the sake of argument, lets say this is "real", and in addition, let's say some rocks were collected from right next to the lander in the shade. Those rocks might be expected to have a great deal of water on them. If it was powder collected, water might be expected to be admixed with the soil. This, because as the lander was coming down, it was pushing a gallon of hot(space steam), but rapidly cooling water, every second into the cooling/shaded lunar soil, the soil right there under the LM.

What was the water content of the contingency sample rocks ? Were any rocks collected in the shade ? If they were not collected in the shade, was this because the PERPS were aware of this card that i am trying to play ? They want to counter me by saying , "No decisively, we collected all of our rocks from sunny soil, way too hot to hold on to any water exhaust."
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "(space steam)", comma



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

My point is, looking at exhaust products, one may be able to catch the perpetrators in a lie

reply to post by sputniksteve
 


For the sake of argument, lets say this is "real", and in addition, let's say some rocks were collected from right next to the lander in the shade. Those rocks might be expected to have a great deal of water on them. If it was powder collected, water might be expected to be admixed with the soil. This, because as the lander was coming down, it was pushing a gallon of hot(space steam), but rapidly cooling water, every second into the cooling/shaded lunar soil, the soil right there under the LM.

What was the water content of the contingency sample rocks ? Were any rocks collected in the shade ? If they were not collected in the shade, was this because the PERPS were aware of this card that i am trying to play ? They want to counter me by saying , "No decisively, we collected all of our rocks from sunny soil, way too hot to hold on to any water exhaust."
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "(space steam)", comma


Wait a minute, regardless of whether they picked rocks close to or far from the LEM wouldn't the act of doing this prove that they were on the moon? I mean you are trying to prove that they weren't there right? So rocks with water or without water as long as they are moon rocks proves you are wrong?

I can't seem to type it out like it is playing in my head but I can't help but think this is all for nought since your argument seems to depend on them being on the moon in the first place. Know what I'm saying?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

As I was saying, the Apollo Fraud PERPS are extremely averse, to the point of essentially "blacking out" each camera in turn, simultaneous documentation of Armstrong's contingency sample collection by tv and 16 mm modalities

reply to post by DJW001
 


Go to the ALSJ;

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Go to the ONE SMALL STEP section.

Look down to the NEIL'S FIRST PAN subsection at 109:32:26. There one finds the following comment including a QUOTE by Armstrong. Note how the wile PERPS took the liberty of changing the EVA program, taking photos before collecting rocks as I had suggested just above that we might find to be the case. Here's the quote, Commander Armstrong;

"Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Here, we changed the flight plan somewhat and got the camera down before doing the contingency sample. I wanted to get that camera down and hooked up (on the RCU) while I was over there in the (LM) shadow, because to do the contingency sample, I was going to have to stow the LEC and go over into the area out of the shadow. Since I wanted to do it on the right side (that is, Buzz's side of the spacecraft) where the (16mm) camera was mounted (in Buzz's window), I was going to have to make a trip of about 10 or 15 feet before I started the contingency sample. That's the reason we changed the order." "

I don't think that was the reason Neil. Don't urinate on my back and tell me that it is raining.

Thanks to DJW001 for his nice video reference;

vimeo.com...

Note the 16 mm goes out at 6:22 into this video . It takes Buzz 5 minutes to change the magazine. So just as Armstrong walks out of the tv camera field of view, the 16 mm shots resume. This, at 11 minutes and change into the video. Just as I had suggested we might find would prove to be the case, they don't want both cameras running here with Neil in a common field of view.

They do not have, or don't want us to see, simultaneous contingency sampling(both tv camera and 16 mm) as would have been documented by way of side by side images of Armstrong collecting stones in the above fine video presentation were the commander not to have conveniently snuck out of the tv camera field of view.

Aldrin's getting the 16 mm to come back on line just when Armstrong starts to collect the contingency, and the 16 mm coming on line just when Armstrong steps out of the tv camera field of view, these are "coincidences" that surely cannot be believed as such.

My friends, we have been had ! .



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Excuse me if I'm missing something here, but let's say for a moment (just a moment) that it WAS a hoax. If so, then wouldn't they still have been able to film the hoax with two cameras simultaneously?

Plus, there are videos of astronauts collecting other rock samples. Again, assuming for a moment that it was a hoax, it's not like they couldn't film them collecting fake rocks. So how id the absence of a video meaningful?



edit on 5/30/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: speellling, and. grammar



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Duplicated and so removed
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: duplicated



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Duplicated again, sorry 'bout that. deleted as doubled
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: doubled post and so deleted



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


What nonsense....and using the [ headline ] [ /headline ] BB code brackets does not emphasize, nor improve, a false claim:


As I was saying, the Apollo Fraud PERPS are extremely averse, to the point of essentially "blacking out" each camera in turn, simultaneous documentation of Armstrong's contingency sample collection by tv and 16 mm modalities.


What I've seen (so far) is a peculiar fixation on only Apollo 11, and the photographic and still image evidence of that particular mission....to the "EXCLUSION" of ALL other evidence to show the reality of ALL Apollo missions.

In its entirety the Apollo Program stands.

"Cherry-Picking" can be accomplished, and applied, to just about 'anything' in life.....once a person decides to apply such a micro-scope sort of examination, and not realize the over-all picture.

edit on 30-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: Correct "headline" BB code problems



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

The Fraud Perpetrators may not be smart enough to put water on their rocks



If they were not on the moon, if this is a fraud, they might not be smart enough to put water on their rocks. They ain't messing around with kids ya' know. We are pretty dang clever at times on this side too. We've already shown how the PERPS botched it here there and everywhere. This water exhaust business might be another botch, though it is technically a very difficult angle to work. So as good an idea as it may be, I may not be able to press it well enough to really show something, have a strong positive PERP chop busting result.

On the other hand, speaking to the broader issue, we definitely caught them with their mylar space pants down. We'll nail them for sure on the Armstrong changing the EVA program unilaterally business. Follow that bogus line, and it shall take us to a solid chop busting on the good commander. To be sure, to be sure, great line of investigation there that will almost certainly bear fruit for our side.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

The root of said hanky panky



This stuff is tricky. Say for a moment I am correct about the water thing. Then the answer may well be "NO !!!! you cannot show Armstrong collecting the rocks and powder there". Because the rocks so close to the lander would be expected to have water on them in some funny way that they cannot fake, make up. They might not be able to fool the awaiting geologists with respect to this .

The thing with the no simultaneous viewing we may well need time to figure out. Often times, one comes across something like this that simply does not add up, and you have to work at it for a while, days, weeks, months, to find out what exactly is at the the root of said hanky panky.

This here is NOT NOT NOT a trivial finding. Armstrong's changing the EVA protocol, taking the photos first and collecting the rocks second, is a glaring deviation from what was a FIRM PROGRAM. As such, he's hiding something VERY BIG. They do not take risks like this unless they have to, unless a ray gun is held to their collective Apollo Fraud Perpetrating head. This is because they draw our attention STRONGLY in with this type of bogus maneuver. The risk as regards this for their side was/is tremendous. Huge downside for them. Risky lie here they are telling about changing the EVA program on the fly, off the cuff like that. As such, it was something they HAD TO DO. They had to have Armstrong step off there and not film him with both cameras.

Perhaps it is as simple as they forgot to do the RECORDED tv camera video without Armstrong's having the camera. Or, this may wind up being a very complicated issue. But there is no question, they are hiding something massively incriminating here. And so, there is a potentially HUGE pay off for my side to pursue this thing here. There is great upside, potential for yet another absolute and elegant proof of Apollo Inauthenticity here.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Could you "please" explain that last post??

Thanks, in advance.

Oh, and I'd suggest you ditch the ridiculous BB-code [ headline ] bolding.....state your case, absent the "trheatrics".

One more thing.....do try to learn from the MANY here who are attempting to educate you......



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Apollo 11 is by far my favorite subject because of the LOST BIRD THEME

reply to post by PluPerfect
 


Care to read more from me though as regards other missions, try these;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We've just started to open the dossier on Edgar Mitchell of Apollo 14. Follow the Apollo Perpetrators List thread and explore Apollo 14, the MOL and ARCH-PERP Mitchell along with us over there in real-time. Should be fun as we bust his chops.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: caps



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

What ? You expect me to take your advice on how I should structure my posts ?

reply to post by PluPerfect
 



Stay on topic PluPerfect. My posting style should be no concern of yours, as yours is no concern of mine. FACTS are all that matter here. I am sure all agree as regards that fundamental point.

Hang around and we'll figure out what Armstrong was up to hanky panky wise when he stepped off camera there on 07/20/1969. Should be interesting. That said, it may take a while, days/weeks/months even, to nail the commander on this one.

That said, WE ALWAYS GET OUR PERP.

Matter-0-fact, haven't met a PERP yet whose chops we could not bust, and shall not bust.

It is inevitable.

This simply will not stand. too much talent on our side, and WAY TOO FAKE A FRAUD ON THEIRS.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling, caps
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: to me> of mine
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: comma





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join