TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

I am trying to make a point here:

You are the solar bombardment expert - I assume that solar bombardment only affects rocks that are on the surface, right?

 

Where? This is completely irrelevant.

Make your point. I'm done educating trolls.

 

Here's something about the hot-or-cold issue.

The Apollo (13) Hoax Revisited



This is what one pro-Apollo poster said in the comment section.

I'm no expert but that looks like sophistry to me.

Let's not forget that Betamax destroyed his credibility a long time ago so nothing he says about this is to be taken seriously.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-ever-happened.512081/page-6#post-1067907736

 

Here's a video I just came across. Be sure to watch it at the 4:45 time mark.

Why Are Astronauts (still) lying?



Check this out.

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Astronaut-visits-SA-after-SpaceShipOne-trip.html
(excerpt)
----------------------
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is day time is absolutely mind-blowing."
----------------------


I can't opine on photography but even a non-expert in photography knows that all the stories should be consistent. Stars are either visible, or not visible. There wouldn't be any contradictions between testimonies from different people from different organizations.

Here's a good discussion on the stars issue.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11116-nasa-exposes-their-apollo-moon-landing-hoax/


edit ten minutes later.
------------------------------

Here's another one I just came across.

NASA's Big Lie: You can't see stars in space

 

There is no hot or cold issue and posting another of your ignorant videos doesn't alter that. Once again you rely on simpletons to make a case and fail in all directions. There are two major differences between the LM on the Moon and in cis-lunar space. On the surface the LM is stationary and has one side to the Sun the entire time. In transit, the craft was performing passive thermal control by performing a slow rotation about its forward axis. On the surface the LM is subject to radiant heat from the local, and to some extent, distant surfaces. Whilst aluminum is a great conductor of heat there would be a very slow build up on the surface from the one side of the craft. With the roll mechanism in place, this would not occur. But as noted, the LM had perfectly adequate cooling. The worst build of heat would be from the equipment within the craft.

You're a biased and very ignorant layman. Don't even associate yourself with experts.

Using the abbreviated "us" in your post is delusion. Nobody agrees with your very uninformed and wholly useless claims. You effectively have no argument against shape memory and thermal effects. You use one idiotic conspiracy claim as a cowardly attempt to poison the well/ad-hominem. My credibility is fine, especially when the judge of it is probably the worst serial forum spammer on the internet!

 

There is a point where stupidity merges with ignorance into a blur of hogwash. This is it. The video makes the case that this composite reflects what the astronauts would see:-



If this were a stupidity contest, the video wins hands down. Quite obviously, the Sun is about 1000 times less bright than it would actually appear. In such circumstances, the eyes would have no chance to dark adapt.

Emphasis on a) no sunlight b)no moonlight c)a launch that gained orbit actually into the darkness of night. Always the issue of seeing stars is dependant on such factors. Always the total idiocy from hoax believers ignores this in favour of moronic observation.

This fool can't opine either, on variable factors that alter the visibility of stars.

Never in the field of conspiracy mania, has so much nonsensical hogwash been spouted about such a ridiculous subject. The fact that you are still talking about this insanity, nearly 10 years later is proof that you are quite mad.

1. Seeing stars in broad daylight on the Moon, with reflections everywhere they looked, through layers of light reducing helmet filtering, is basically impossible.
2. Seeing stars with a rotating cabin, in cis-lunar space, with Sunlight, Earthlight, Moonlight and internal cabin light is very difficult.
3. Seeing stars whilst photographing the solar corona is very unlikely.
4. Seeing stars in space in any condition other than darkness or eyes completely shielded from direct light is very difficult.
5. Getting an idiotic HB to understand or admit any of those is impossible.

 

You are the one that brought this "solar bombardment" thing up - and now you can't give me a simple yes or no?

 

No. I WILL not. Make your point troll. The rocks collected by Apollo and accordingly analysed all came from the lunar surface. Irrelevant bullcrap doesn't interest me.

Maybe you should look up a straw man argument. You are arguing about the differences or lack of in an attempt to prove that I made an error. I did not.

You seem to think that proving that means the rocks came from Earth. It boggles the mind that you ignore that the water is encased in glass beads that prove they were formed in low gravity!

 

Rotating the chicken on the spit doesn't make any difference - the chicken still cooks! Just doesn't burn on one side!

 

How foolish you are. In a vacuum there is only radiated heat from the Sun. The side in shade is free to radiate any absorbed heat away. There is also vacuum between layers in the hull and equipment racks. In addition there is a cooling system primarily to combat the electrical and bodily heat generated! The chicken has none of this.

Every subject you fire at shows your complete ignorance. Show your figures for how hot the craft will get. Factor in layers of hull and cooling systems, plus the hull's own radiative level.

Or alternatively, just carry on making lots of noise like a dog barking at a tennis ball!

 

You are totally wrong once again - especially about chickens...

Chickens have an air conditioning system that rivals that of NASA's undocumented, undemonstrated sublimator nonsense. Chickens have a device called the "Subillmator" and they demonstrate it everyday.

SUBILLMATOR - Chickens have bills with a rich blood supply. On a hot day, the birds can increase the blood flow to their bills to help release heat. When the temperature cools, that blood flow slows and heat is retained within the body instead. Chickens have tiny structures inside nasal cavities in their beaks. These structures function like air conditioning units.They also make use of the cooling effect of urohydrosis that makes use of the change of state property of water.

UROHYDROSIS: Chickens will urinate on their bare legs in order to take advantage of evaporative cooling. (much like the Apollo astronauts)

Less Solar Radiation: Chickens with lighter colored plumage may turn their lightest parts toward the sun on a hot day so more heat is reflected away from their bodies.

Chicken feathers not only facilitate flight, but provides insulation that aids in thermoregulation. People learned years ago how well goose-down insulates and began stuffing comforters, sleeping bags, and clothing with it. More recently, we’ve developed artificial substitutes, but geese and other birds continue to get along just fine with the original material.

Bioengineers continue to study not only the structural arrangements of the feather elements of birds but also their mechanical properties in order to develop more effective insulative materials.

So give a chicken a space suit and he will probably do better than any Apollo astronaut.

 

Ignoring the troll. A cooked piece of meat on a spit will receive heat whether it is facing the fire or not.

 

This guy should know what he's talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------
Born and raised in New York City, Tyson became interested in astronomy at the age of nine after a visit to the Hayden Planetarium. After graduating from the Bronx High School of Science, where he was editor-in-chief of the Physical Science Journal, he completed a bachelor's degree in physics at Harvard University in 1980. After receiving a master's degree in astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, he earned his master's (1989) and doctorate (1991) in astrophysics at Columbia University. For the next three years, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University. In 1994, he joined the Hayden Planetarium as a staff scientist and the Princeton faculty as a visiting research scientist and lecturer. In 1996, he became director of the planetarium and oversaw its $210-million reconstruction project, which was completed in 2000.
--------------------------------------

Look what he says.

Can you see stars from space and the moon?



I hope he doesn't have an "Accident", or "Commit suicide", or die of a "Drug overdose", or end up like Philip Marshal.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...undits-who-support-the-official-story.514874/

 

I am finding it hard not to laugh at how dumb you are and how you keep this moronic issue about stars going 10 years on. I listened to the guy and he makes perfect sense. He was asked about stars in space and explained it thus:-

On Earth, during daylight, the atmosphere scatters the light causing the blue we see, that in turn blocks out the visibility of stars. On the Moon, because there is no atmosphere, even during the day, the stars are perfectly visible with the sun in the sky. Once again for the spammer:-

1. Seeing stars in broad daylight on the Moon, with reflections everywhere they looked, through layers of light reducing helmet filtering, is basically impossible.
2. Seeing stars with a rotating cabin, in cis-lunar space, with Sunlight, Earthlight, Moonlight and internal cabin light is very difficult.
3. Seeing stars whilst photographing the solar corona is very unlikely.
4. Seeing stars in space in any condition other than darkness or eyes completely shielded from direct light is very difficult.
5. Getting an idiotic HB to understand or admit any of those is impossible.

Elaborating on number 1 above. Nowhere did the astronauts say there were no stars. deGrasse Tyson merely stated that compared to Earth, stars are visible with the Sun in the sky. He did not say it would be easy to see them under most conditions! If any of the astronauts who landed on the moon, wanted to see stars(and why the hell would they, since they were on the Moon to study it and could do this on Earth any time they wanted to!), they would need to do the following;-

1. Dark adapt their eyes from the glare of Earthshine, Sunshine, the surface and a variety of reflective surfaces.
2. Lift up their gold visor.
3. Stare upwards with none of the light sources in their central vision and as little as possible in their peripheral vision.

Aldrin and Armstrong had a short duration mission and lots to do. Gene Cernan IIRC, was one astronaut who took time out to look at the stars. Now, before the spammer or the troll come back with the "spectacular view" afforded the astronauts by way of more stars, atmosphere free, The double layer helmet structure blocked out up to 30% of incoming light so there would be barely any difference with the view on Earth.

Edit: Your ridiculous inability to see context and the stupid conclusion you come to about his life in danger are just painfully wrong. DGT is not in any danger, his viewpoints are perfectly correct, his explanation is correct. The problem is the foolish conclusion reached that he contradicts the astronauts when he does no such thing. They were unable to see stars because of limitations in the viewing conditions listed above. DGT makes no reference to these, just that the stars appear in the sky alongside the Sun.

 

How can it be possible that it was a hoax ? So many people were involved with the Apollo project, how could they have kept them all in the dark about the ruse ?

 

The chicken both receives heat, and also radiates heat
We can test this by heating up a cast iron pan by what ever means
Then stop adding heat
Put your hand over the pan without touching
You will feel the radiated heat coming from the pan

 

Big Lies About Stanley Kubrick.

Are there any adults on this forum?

FALSE: Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings - Snopes.com
www.snopes.com/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/
Claim: Stanley Kubrick admitted in an interview that he helped NASA fake the U.S. moon landings. See Example(s)
Claimed by: Internet
Fact check by Snopes.com: FALSE

 

Big Lies About Stanley Kubrick.

Are there any adults on this forum?

FALSE: Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings - Snopes.com
www.snopes.com/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/
Claim: Stanley Kubrick admitted in an interview that he helped NASA fake the U.S. moon landings. See Example(s)
Claimed by: Internet
Fact check by Snopes.com: FALSE

 

What would happen if we took the Lunar Module and parked it on a Florida Walmart's asphalt parking lot (coincidentally the same albedo as the moon) on a nice hot clear summer day in direct sunlight. Would that miracle Mylar and Kapton shielding keep it nice and cool? How long could we keep it cool running on batteries? What would happen if we shut off the power?

 

There is nothing miraculous about the shielding. Aluminum, Mylar and Kapton are all highly efficient for their use. If you weren't such a pitiful case, I would say they were reasonable questions, but they are just more trolling.

On Earth the atmosphere would heat all 4 sides in addition to direct sunlight. Although direct sunlight is a little less on Earth the net effect would be more. This would push the internal temperature up to an uncomfortable level if the power was switched off. With the air conditioning on, there is nothing to suggest it could not keep the interior cool. Most vehicles have air conditioning that quite easily cope with constant solar exposure, even in equatorial regions where the ground gets extremely hot.
Internal batteries were rated at 48hrs to 75hrs as mission duration increased.

 

Presumably you are aware that the international space station exists
And that astronauts from various countries have worn space suits for operating outside the space station
And that these suits require the same cooling technology as was required on the moon .... for exactly the same reasons

More info can be found here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Cooling_and_Ventilation_Garment

 

I am not quite understanding your point here. We are talking about the lunar module and how it should it should react thermally in the Apollo environment. I know that the ISS space suits are presumed to have some sort of PLSS system. Maybe after almost 50 years nasa actually came up with some method of cooling a space suit besides using an umbilical hose. I am guessing that the ISS suits probably have a mini AC system that runs off of power from wires from the station.

You can't compare the LM with the ISS. The LM ran off of batteries, the ISS runs off of 27,000 square feet of solar arrays.

 

You don't understand a whole lot on any of this.

No, you are making lots of noise and ignoring copious amounts of rebuttal. You haven't defined how it should react in the "Apollo" environment, did you mean lunar! You were asked to provide some figures for your claims. None will ever be provided.

They use the same system as Apollo. It is a very clever idea that uses minimal power to circulate water across exposed micro-pores that turn to ice.

There are reports from that era detailing the exact operation of the cooling system. I do not expect idiot conspiracy theorists to understand such basics.

https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19720019460

Please try not to guess, if it's even possible, it makes you look more stupid. There are no wires from the ISS. The suits are self contained and uses the same cooling system as the Apollo PLSS.

One ton of batteries that basically needed to circulate water across vacuum exposed micro-pores. The water immediately boiled in a vacuum and turned to ice. The ice cooled the water running across the back of the sublimator. If you think that very simple system to perform heat exchange would not work, let's hear your detailed response to the problems.

 

http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
(excerpts)
---------------------------------------------
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
---------------------------------------------
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.

 

Those who work in the lower echelons of NASA are being fooled the same as the rest of us. They're merely tiny cogs in the gigantic wheel of spin, lies and subterfuge. I read this morning in the news that Australia is gonna have its very own 'space agency', so it looks like the Ozzie 'scientists' are going to get a piece of the action too. How any adult can believe this crap never ceases to amaze me.