We never went to the moon.

Yep. Correct.

Yes it is. 100%. It is a vacuum and explained to you in simple language that a child would comprehend.

[quite] No calculations are necessary.[/quote]

In the land if woooo, not even evidence is necessary!

Very fast exhaust gasses move surface material.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Show what he said so that the viewers will understand the issue. Here's what he said.

This is not consistent with what billvon said. Any child can see this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The exhaust is not a detonation, no hole would be blown in the surface from that nozzled rocket engine. Harrier jets use the same principle to land, no craters there either, in similar surfaces.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The viewers all understand Deluded conspiracy theorists don't.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou......3..41j0i131j33i160j0i22i10i30.TcFH7Is+fo4=

He was perfectly correct.

You really are the most very ignorant person I have come across. It's like this buzzer goes off in your bonce and nothing anyone can say will change your dumb thought.

Are you a man or a spambot?

I cannot adequately put in to words quite how appallingly inept you are at physics. The exhaust gasses are not impeded by air because it is a vacuum. They travel at hundreds of meters per second.

Instead of jumping up and down like a comedy troll, explain what the problem is. If it is a slip up, should be easy for you. Your opinion is already as useless as they come, so try not to think it qualifies as a fact!

The gasses expand from the bell at 90 degrees. They strike an area generally circular with a diameter of 72 feet. Hence the gentle dust dispersion. As far as diminishing the pressure, this is true for the areas away from the centre of the bell. As the exhaust gasses expand outwards it reduces significantly. In the central areas it does not change much. If anything it would be more than 1.7psi because the LM has much more fuel and therefore mass, is NOT hovering but is throttled up higher to arrest its fall. I estimated a minimum psi of around 0.025 at the edges.

Explain what the problem is, change a habit of a lifetime and actually respond with more than hot air!

 

Viewers...

If you haven't watched this, please watch it.

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 4

(2:15 time mark)

 

It is exactly what I would expect if a five foot wide nozzle with an exit pressure of 2 psi was held about a hundred feet above a plain covered with very fine dust. You'd see the dust blown away over a wide area.

Congratulations, you've just demonstrated that there's nothing wrong with that video other than your lack of understanding of physics.

Time and time again here you've shown that you are gullible enough to fall for any BS you find on the web, but not smart enough to understand the physics behind it. Why not spend all the effort you put into pushing lies into learning physics? It will, ultimately, be a lot more rewarding.

 

Pathetic spammer. You are ignoring responses as you always do. You are a troll of the worst kind.





Why would NASA take dozens of pictures under the LM, talk about the lack of depth of disturbance and be too dumb not to dug SIX of the bloody things

 

Because somebody has to be dumb, and it sure ain't FatFreddy now is it.

Is it?

Um.

Yeah, it is.

 

I watched it live.

 

As did I. As did a large portion of the planet.

 

Me, too! I was impressed with the seamless CGI.

 

The latest I heard sssshhhhh - update - MEN never went to the moon - Neil and Buzz were robots

Live on Earth but their doppelganger robots went to the moon and the landers go carts and spacesuits were all remote controled

Has FF checked that out yet?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

if we were to gather all the top 20 physacists opinions over the last 200 years, i think there would not be any confusion in the basic physics principals.
rock in a vacuum still has the rock properties and expanding

simple physics dictates the lander must be travelling slower than the gravitation field balance to be able to land at a near zero speed.
the zero speed is actually part of the escape speed opposing the gravitational force, otherwise there would be nothing called gravity(and no ability to move anything to or from anything, on earth or the moon or anywhere else).

what relationship that has to the dust being kicked up as a physics model i am unsure of.
dust being relative to its molecular weight as a relative equation to the gravitational force of the moon.

if there is an underlying change in physics that is being used to try and disprove the gravitational force, then they need to post it.

im sure physicists can calculate the relative amount of dust to the relative gravitational force based on the moon rock that has been recovered.

IF,... (and it then throws the entire debate into the pseudoscience bracket) some are suggesting there is some different type of material that the moon is made of AND there is some different type of Gravitational force...
then those that suggest the landing was a hoax, need to simply post their 2 basic physics principals
1. what is the moon made out of ?
2. what if any is the gravitational force of the moon (and feel free to relate that to the earths consequential lack of gravity or insular gravitational properties)?

 

Just as an aside - I would advise that folks simply report users who are ignoring/dismissing evidence or otherwise trolling, rather than responding to them. Thanks!

 

Maybe I should report all of the posters who ignored all of this crushing proof that the missions were faked.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-46#post-3513302

MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 4

(2:15 time mark)


edit
---------------------------

I just came across these videos but I don't have time to watch them right now but I'm posting them anyway.

MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum. PART 1


MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum. PART 2

 

Or people could report you for being tediously absurd.

 

Freddy, in point of fact, not only do you not have proof of faked missions, you actually don't have evidence.

What you have is questions and mysteries and a conjecture about how they could be explained. But there is no extant evidence of a hoax.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between conjecture and evidence dynamites your credibility.

 

Fats, you are one lying troll. That useless pile of spam has had the crap kicked out of it:

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

Remember spammer, address the content not the author. Well we know you aren't going to do that don't we!

Jarrah White, the puny minded pillock. Is he your hero or something?

Addressed already and of course ignored by the equally puny equipped spammer -

You are ignoring responses as you always do. You are a troll of the worst kind.



Why would NASA take dozens of pictures under the LM, talk about the lack of depth of disturbance and be too dumb not to dug SIX of the bloody things.

Maybe when you "find time" to look at the stupid videos you posted you will find time to view the highly informed ones above from Phil Webb. Or you will just ignore them to safeguard your sad mad belief.

 

NASA had trouble working out how to make a shovel work on the moon

And realised the astronauts were to dumb to use them anyway

(Not true of course but let's see if FF propagates that)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He has the attitude that he won this debate with me.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/

I know you people are going to insist that he did win but the viewers can decide for themselves.

Another hoax-believer backed me up in this thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796

I think Betamax just generally looks silly when he debates these clear pieces of hoax proof. You people are going to insist that he's winning but the viewers can decide for themselves.