01 Feb 17
Originally posted by SuzianneDon't be naive, he has no interest in actually learning that stuff since in his mind NASA ALWAYS lies so the lunar modules are just another back room fake to him, so you needn't have bothered. Glad you did though.
Here is more data about the lunar modules than even you care to know.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
The Wiki page on the lunar modules is here, with plenty additional data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
Originally posted by sonhouse'Space' nations don't dis each other because they are all at it.
Er, I actually knew about the Chinese rover and congratulated them for it on their site. I think he was saying the Chinese now denounce the moon landings. Never saw a reference to that. I think that would be fake news, real space faring nations don't dis each other like American traitors. We never said for instance, the sputnik was faked since we could aim ...[text shortened]... on your hard on against NASA so anything I say would never make a dent in your so-called brain.
And that thing you said earlier about dust.That was one of the things they got wrong.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by Captain StrangeAh, another Freak parrot then. That was one thing the DID get right because If you are really a lunar landing denier, they got it on the moon. Hope you are not a traitor like Freak. It is treason to suggest we faked the moon landing. That is a direct slap in the face of our scientific prowess. It is nothing less than treason in my eyes.
'Space' nations don't dis each other because they are all at it.
And that thing you said earlier about dust.That was one of the things they got wrong.
The moon is too cold in the shade (about minus 300 F), and too hot in the sun (over 200 degrees F), which would have either frozen and cracked, or else melted the delicate film in the cameras.
Also, the powerful cosmic and solar rays in open space would have exposed the film right through the closed camera doors.
Yet, nearly all the Apollo pictures have perfect exposures.
Originally posted by Captain StrangeWow, I bet those optical engineers NEVER thought of those issues, being in on the fake why should they actually take steps to shield the cameras from thermal and radiational abuse, eh. Stupid engineers. BTW, did you perhaps notice they were not film cameras? They were TV cameras, a whole different ball game and it just so happens that I know a bit, not engineer lever for sure, but I know the electronics of those jobs. The actual sensor back in those days was not the ubiquitous CMOS detectors with megapixel readings, they were silicon wafers etched to be extremely thin and very fragile and flexible, the idea being light coming on one side of the silicon detector puts electric charges on the surface that matches the video being imaged. The other side had a scanning electron beam just like in the old CRT tubes on 80's TV's and older oscilloscopes. So what happened there was the electron beam scans across the back surface of the very thin silicon wafer maybe an inch or so in diameter and the beam gets deflected by the static charges built up on the front side but which is also present on the back side, so the reflected electron beam intensity varies across the face of the detector. That electron beam is then being modulated in intensity by the charges on the silicon and you channel that intensity signal out to the electronics that re-assembles the image to another kind of TV and into a transmitter in the lunar case, shipped off to Earth on a microwave beam to waiting RF telescopes, like Jodrell, or Goldstone in the California desert (where I was offered a tech job after Nixon killed Apollo, long story) and then to Goddard for making it into something broadcastable.
The moon is too cold in the shade (about minus 300 F), and too hot in the sun (over 200 degrees F), which would have either frozen and cracked, or else melted the delicate film in the cameras.
Also, the powerful cosmic and solar rays in open space would have exposed the film right through the closed camera doors.
Yet, nearly all the Apollo pictures have perfect exposures.
There of course were good film camera's but the cosmic rays did not do a number on the film. If I can find it I can show you an example of REAL cosmic rays hitting a modern CMOS detector.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-views-saturn-unprecedented.html
Found it. There are very recent new images from Cassini of Saturn's rings, impressive closeups indeed. So this mission, if you chose to accept it🙂 is to go to the link, scroll down to image # 2. It shows very close up details of Saturn's rings. But in the image are little white streaks of cosmic ray's making themselves known to the camera, little white streaks just a couple mm long in this image, but it does show visible artifacts on the resultant image, NASA can probably photoshop them out if they wanted to. The gist of this exercise is the rays coming into the detector at Saturn shows the planet to be very active radiologically speaking, a giant supply of X rays, gamma's and so forth.
The moon has very little in the way of the huge energy being generated by a giant planet with rings and deep hundreds of Km deep clouds covering the whole planet. It is a radiation generator, and a powerful one.
The stuff on the moon is kid's play compared to Saturn.
Please take the time to get a bit educated on these matters before just parroting the traitors who write the fakery books for money ONLY.
I guess for you to keep hanging on to your cognitive dissonance, you will be forced to not read anything I wrote, not care about what I said and not even look at the images of what real cosmic rays do to cameras, especially in a high radiation environment like Saturn. If so you are missing out on some badly needed education.
I am talking to you as adult to adult in the hopes you are not as brain dead as the Freak.
Originally posted by SuzianneUm, yeah...
Here is more data about the lunar modules than even you care to know.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html
The Wiki page on the lunar modules is here, with plenty additional data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
I don't ask questions (for the most part) without already having the answers.
This is for the benefit of those who have simply accepted, prima facie, the account given by NASA, in hopes they will stop long enough to consider the extraordinary claims and then compare those claims to what we do know, what can be verified with first hand accounts by anyone at any time.
The next question to the query regarding cargo space:
What did NASA claim was in the lunar modules?
Originally posted by sonhouseLook at the pictures, lughead.
Ah, another Freak parrot then. That was one thing the DID get right because If you are really a lunar landing denier, they got it on the moon. Hope you are not a traitor like Freak. It is treason to suggest we faked the moon landing. That is a direct slap in the face of our scientific prowess. It is nothing less than treason in my eyes.
Videos of the astronauts in slo-mo while CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY attached to support wires shows dust being kicked up by their foot motions, suspended above the surface and then falling back to the surface--- in, on and around their feet.
The 20,000 pounds of thrust would have been blowing dust far more than the same landing on the earth, would have created a crater, and would have seen the pads of the module covered in the silt.
Instead: Nada.
They effed up, bigly.
They are the treasonous traitors, numbnuts.
They've been stealing money from the wage earners for five decades and gullible cucks such as yourself are at least partially to blame.
Why?
Because your sheer arrogance and narcissistic perspective only allows you to think in terms of yourself.
You couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone but yourself, let alone the truth.
You're justified in denying the truth because you worked on the program?
Pound effing sand, you tosser.
When these ass wipes (will you look at that! No need for extra letters! ) are finally fully exposed, I'll be sure to bring it up in EVERY conversation you try to jump in: traitor.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYeah, says the traitor who thinks Earth is flat. I just wish you could be arrested as a traitor to the US. You either parrot the traitors who wrote the fakery books or you think you have such incredible observational skills you can make that kind of judgement "OBVIOUS" photoshopping or whatever. You don't have SQUAT in those kind of skills, it takes someone with 1) actual brains, and 2) real training in forensic digital photography to suss out the lies you tell. You wouldn't be able to tell an unaltered raw image from one just processed for contrast control, if you even know what that is, you would just go, SEE I TOLD YOU, IT'S FAKE. But my main talk was for someone maybe not quite as addled as you have proven yourself to be many times over, I think Dr Strange is not your pet parrot, at least not yet. I talked to him as if he was an actual adult, as opposed to you whom I despise as a traitor should be.
Look at the pictures, lughead.
Videos of the astronauts in slo-mo while CLEARLY and UNDENIABLY attached to support wires shows dust being kicked up by their foot motions, suspended above the surface and then falling back to the surface--- in, on and around their feet.
The 20,000 pounds of thrust would have been blowing dust far more than the same landing ...[text shortened]... ly fully exposed, I'll be sure to bring it up in EVERY conversation you try to jump in: traitor.
BTW, traitor, since the resolution of 1970 era cameras basically sucked, how is it you think your eyes were so perfect as to be able to pick out support wires? You better get your glasses repaired.
Originally posted by HandyAndyHe has fantasized a whole lot more than that, but that is part of it, he says he sees islands he would never see had Earth somehow, improbable as it seems, is actually round🙂 Let's see, also NASA ALWAYS LIES, apparently about EVERYTHING. No such thing as satellites, for instance, he claims GPS is done from ground stations, which is interesting, a possibility for sure but there is that pesky detail that GPS signals just fine in the middle of the frigging OCEAN🙂 I aked him to tell me (I am a microwave comm specialist, among other goodies I have come in contact with in my young 75 years) how does a microwave signal (line of sight kind of thing you know) manage to find a nice signal in a GPS in the middle of the Pacific ocean, especially when the antenna is pointed straight up in the air and if you were to take it and physically move it to point at the horizon which is where a ground signal would come from, lo and behold, no signal. Point it up in the air, and the signal magically returns.
Did it ever occur to you that Freaky thinks Earth is flat because he lives in Cleveland?
Think of a bowling ball with one small area flattened out with a hammer.
Oh yessss my precious, the sun is a ball MAYBE a thousand miles wide, some how yo yoing its way around the flat earth which is why we don't have one time zone🙂
Unexplained is where does the sun go at NIGHT? Uh, lets see...
What else, by implication therefore, the moon has to be much smaller, much closer since even the most diehard flatasser cannot dismiss such subjects as Lunar Eclipses....
What else. See he just parrots the crap fed to him by the Flatassssociety lit.
Oh yes, ISS is just a fake, even though amateur telescopists can take nice clear pictures of it, some backlit by being in front of the full moon. That means all amateur astronomers are also in on the big conspiracy. Also all other space faring nations, Russia, China, India, Hell even Israel launched a sat. So they must have these secret meetings, all the space dudes...
Oh yeah, he askes why did Russia, which maybe you know, started the Mohovoric discontinuity drill project, drill down till you can't anymore and that can't anymore turned out to be about 7 miles deep. So he says, Ok Just why can't they go deeper. Implying of course yet another conspiracy, see, Russia now knows Earth is just 7 miles deep and is hiding that fact from the world since that would lead to world wide panic or some such.
Are you getting the drift here? This is not my imagination, all you need to do, I know you won't it's stupid to try but all that stuff came from his words in the flat earth thread.
Oh yeah, the moon landings had "obvious' wires on the boots of the astronauts where the dust on the moon was rigged to look like it was in a 1/6 gravity field.
I asked him how come he could see wires with the crappy resolution of the cameras back in 1970, remember what they looked like, the first images were terrible, they got better, but see a frigging wire in that kind of photo, digital or film?
God, it gets better, since NASA lies, there are no full one page filled image of all of Antarctica since that would instantly invalidate the whole flatassness. So they lied about that.
I pointed out there was a major US Navy circumnavigation of Antarctica in 1947, google it, you will find it. And now, at least 3 touristy kind of circumnavs of Antarctica have already taken place and another one launching in a few months.
THEY LIE, etc. So now commercial companies, Norwegian lines or some such is also in on the big secret.
And on and on and on and on.
Is that enough for you? There is more but that should give you the rough gist of it. A bit more than being in Cleveland, which, outside of the rock and roll hall of fame, what is there that you would actually want to live there?🙂
Oh yeah, one more: Coriolis effect. No such thing. If you take a rifle and point it north and shoot, the bullet goes off a bit in the few seconds it is in the air because in those few seconods the Earth spins underneath it, so go north with the bullet, it hangs a left, misses the target, point it south, shoot, it misses the target to the right. Proven stuff even shown on gun enthusiasts videos showing the corrections you HAVE to make if you actually intend to hit the target. incredible. Why would anyone actually want to hit the target🙂
Same with aircraft, they HAVE to take Coriolis into account or they will be maybe 50 miles off target at the other end, and they go a lot slower than a bullet so the ground moves under them much more severely than the few seconds a bullet is in the air, hours of course.
NOPE. NEVER HAPPENS, so you see now he is an expert pilot who knows all about flying....
Do you get the gist of why there cannot be a Coriolis effect? In their addled brains, the Flatasssers, Earth cannot spin, since it is, as everyone knows, shaped like a pancake and therefore if Earth actually was caught spinning, there would be no outward centripital force say at the North Pole but plenty of it near the edge of the pancake, where you might not even be able to stand upright, think standing upright on a merry-go-round and how you are thrust outwards, can't happen on a non-spinning flat Earth, because that would be too much to rationalize away, they can't rationalize that without special instruments, you yourself, say if transported in the beam me up scotty thingy, say, from the North pole to an equatorial island, you would feel maybe an ounce of difference, not noticable. But a spinning pancake, little different, so. Rule # 76, Earth does not spin. EVER.
And then there is the weight we feel, they know almost enough physics to realize they can't rationalize a 100 kg person weight 100 KG because if the Earth was actually only 7 miles deep by whatever, 13,000 miles wide, there would be practically zero gravity and a 100 Kg mass would come out at maybe ONE or some such. Pretty sad, eh.
Originally posted by SeitseIf you is referring to me, I be waiting for a tech support call from Brooks Automation about a cryopump compressor that seems to have gone south, running for about one minute before kicking off. Of course, I just made all that up, since a 75 yo could not possibly have a respectable tech job, eh.
Some has a LOT of time in his hands.
It is kind of odd, then, that I know Brooks automation makes cryopumps and cryocompressors, which I am quite sure you have never run into in your entire life. Oh why didn't I think of it. I just googled Brooks and found out all about just 3 minutes ago. I am such a Sap.
BTW, if you are talking about the time I took writing my Phd thesis about the Freak, I type fast for one thing, and it took a couple of months of his insane rambling to be able to point out just the stuff I typed here, there is more but that should be enough to convince any jury of the mental stability of such a patient.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by HandyAndyMy views on the shape of the earth have less to do with where I live--- West Coast, East Coast and now Midwest--- and more to do with what is observable.
Did it ever occur to you that Freaky thinks Earth is flat because he lives in Cleveland?
Think of a bowling ball with one small area flattened out with a hammer.
First hand information is ALWAYS preferred to second hand accounting.
First hand accounts, i.e., what we can see for ourselves, is more reliable than second hand accounts, overwhelmingly so.
When we accept a second hand accounts in place of our first hand knowledge, we should only do so as a result of a preponderance of evidence in the favor of the latter.
However, when the second hand information is not only at odds with our observations but is internally contradictory as well as repeatedly false, we revert back to first hand knowledge, rejecting the content and the source of the falsities as unreliable.
In this case, had NASA never purposely lied about anything, there would be some weight to their accounting.
Of course, there is the pesky problem of a horizon which fails to fall away and out of view of the observer to deal with, but at least it would still be possible to reconcile the incongruity between our first hand observations and NASA's conflicting information.
But they lie.
Repeatedly.
They have been since before the moon landing hoaxes and have been ever since.
They've not produced a single unaltered picture of the planet, ever.
According to sonhouse, it requires an expert to determine whether a picture has been altered, but we all know this isn't true: any idiot with Photoshop loaded on their computer can load a picture and be instantly able to determine how much of the picture has been altered and edited.
Literally no skill required for that endeavor at all.
One of the iconic pictures from the landing is of an astronaut to the left, flag toward the center and an earth rise over the flag.
Fake.
Obviously fake at first glance, given the proportions, but when run through the program...
Yeah: cut, paste, fake.
All of them are similar in duplicities, whether cut and paste or otherwise altered.
Every single one of them.
Now, I've been making this claim for quite some time.
You'd think that instead of going off another self-absorbed ramble about his Forrest Gump life, sonhouse would simply thumb through his personal collection of NASA photographs (rightly, they call them images instead) and shut me the hell up by showing a SINGLE unaltered photograph.
Instead: crickets.
Wonder why that is?
