LLL, just a quick reminder to this post. Can you do the maths for us and prove that the earth looks too small in some photographs? Or do you retract that claim and admit that your claim was wrong?

I'm glad about that, I thought my memory was going.

the pressure you are reffering to is a static pressure , i know this because roughly every single 'firm believers' drop that pressure when the crater issue is raised , yet you perfectly know that they have calculated this pressure by dividing the force (in this case the thurst) by the nozzle exit area (P=F/A in other words) , and this is just a simple static pressure , so at whatever pressure this >mach 1 exhaust gas will exit , it will not be a static pressure , it will be a continuous flow of gas and not a static solid object pressure , nothing to do with a footstep , nothing to do with any simple object laying on a ground , because it will be a constant moving flow of gas (as long as the engine is on) this pressure we need to know is the dynamic pressure then.

maths will not prevent the official landing video to show a constant blowing-away of dusty surface as long as the engine isn't turned off , so they can't prevent the logicall expectation of a crater under that nozzle , math will not prevent these rocket engine nozzle to be seen at less than 40 centimeters of the ground above a dusty surface where astronaut make deep footprints , so math will do nothing else than increase any incoherence of these scene , because they can't confirm such a fraud unless if your math are faulty , i also doubt that any maths will accept the motion of these lunar ascent modules making instantaneous stops every 10 seconds like if they've found a secret technology on the moon just before liftoff , and i confidently say this even if im a not very good in maths.

-edit-

but since you say you have found these famous mising datas , what are they ? i already say i didn't have them so i didn't find them anywhere obviously , share your secret please.

density
velocity (so temperature needed also)
throat area
nozzle exit area

with these 4 datas i think we have a start (if you did find them of course).

i already did the math in a way , i don't have a lot of confidence in the alleged method they used to take these photos in the first place , because i firmly believe that they never left our protective magnetosphere any single time in current mankind history yet , so they can't have landed on the moon anywhere in the seventie's , from that point , i will not start to do math relying on these crosses that i would be forced to believe genuine hasslblades camera with whatever official lens they claimed to have mounted on it , because for me they faked the whole thing , this include taking photos with whatever camera they want and any possible optics they want to acheive the effect they've wanted , so given that , i just rely on the very photo i showed , witch show a clear kinda normal view (no huge distortion by a wide angle seems to be present) and a small earth , given that the moon is 4 times smaller in diameter than the earth , i just reduced the earth just to check what would be the size of the moon in comparison , and it give an extremly small moon , that mean that this picture would be a pretty wide angle , yet the picture is NOT looking like a wide angle at all , because it looks rather normal , once again no huge distortion at all , this is normal feeling photos to me , and my conclusion was that this earth is too small , because the moon will be extremly small (as in a wide angle photos) that don't match with what i see .

My God!!! LLL you found a very interesting picture here!!! Look at the flag!!! It rotated 180 degrees!!!!!!! MID,I would appreciate to hear from you about it.

yes this is impossible , they stopped instantly , they should have a little decceleration before the stop , like a curve , it can be a steep curve , but still a curve , here it is an instantaneous stops , and not only one time , but several times in the same scene , did you watched the video by the way ? did you missed the ~3'05" instant stop one at least ? and did you see the instant stop in ascent of apollo 14 at 1'09" ? this is simply impossible to stop that way , they instantly stop you can't ignore that , these craft have 1) a secret technology (apparently mastered already) that allow the to defy the law of motion like this , or 2) these are models of these craft filmed to roughly simulate what could eventually looks like a rendez-vous scene while orbiting the moon.

It wasn't impossible, and it didn't defy the laws of motion. In fact, it corresponded precisely to the laws of motion.

The dynamic pressure of a fluid (gaseous or liquid) is the force exerted on a flat surface by the motion of a fluid, not its kinetic-molecular state.

Assumuing ideal plume, total dynamic fluid pressure / area of impingement equal to the exit plane of DPS nozzle. This works out at just under one PSI when hovering (2,690 lbf of force required)

Well, LLL, they did have a "secret technology" that had been mastered (not really secret, just kidding). It was called maneuvering thruster fire to dampen rates...small rates. The LM ascent stage responded like a jet fighter without all the mass attached to it that was there in the form of fuel and a descent stage.

You're looking at the last 90 feet or so of the terminal phase of rendezvous, where the LM, closing at ever decreasing rates (<6 feet per second at that time) fired +Z thrusters and stopped the forward motion. It happened quickly. Then you'll notice the wobble as the thrusters fire to hold attitude, which wobbled a bit due to the snappy thruster response. Even the wobble was dampened quickly in that configuration.

They're not models...those were the real deal. It wasn't impossible, and it didn't defy the laws of motion. In fact, it corresponded precisely to the laws of motion.

I posted as soon as you replied... or at soon as I noticed it at any rate. If I happen to be up when you post, and I have a rebuttal for it, I generally try to reply right away while the ideas are fresh in my head.

Plus, when I am genuinely tired, I do say so in my post. The other times what you're terming as my "grouchiness" is just my frustration at having the evidence I and other have given being ignored showing through a bit too much. Some of my longer posts to you in the past have taken upwards of 4 hours to compile, taking into account time to locate the correct information.


Cz

yes i know that estimation , but i can't take it for granted , because he don't tell what is the temperature and still calculate an exhaust velocity , the problem is the hotter the faster , so how did he get that exhaust velocity right in the first place without any mention of the temperature ?

also later he calculate the dynamic pressure on the area of impingment , but he don't tell anything about the dynamic pressure at the nozzle exit first , and also he doesn't make this calculation , density x (velocity squared) /2 , so how is this dynamic pressure valid ? checking the at nasa site , it's pretty clear , they state , dynamic pressure = density x (velocity squared) /2 , i didn't see that operation , i didn't see the density , and the velocity was calculated wihout temperature so it can't be right.

Turbonium, you say that "only a few" needed to know of the hoax. Were this true, the rest would be busy building functioning, operational Moonships. Able to withstand the understood environment of the lunar mission...the VABs, the surface, everything.

The international space community had built a wealth of knowledge on what Apollo would encounter throughout the mission. The Apollo workers designed and built a craft capable of withstanding that environment.

But...a "few" determined that all these folks from around the world were wrong, that the prip was impossible. What did they alone know? Why was the mission impossible? Why did they need to create a PARALLEL hoax mission, alongside the real, public, multibillion dollar effort? And who staffed it...more than just "a few" folks.

In short...why the hoax??

Thanks for the post, Turbs... its appreciated, and no apologies necessary... I fully realize that I can come across as grouchy at times

I understand what you're saying regarding the disparate group sizes, and I guess sometimes its easy to forget that there are more than just the handful of "regular" posters on both sides.


Cz

...it is just impossible to still believe the apollo moon landing where real after looking at these 3 videos , but i agree this is just my biased opinion , so go check for yourself and tell me what you think about them :

first video (my personal favorite) , apollo 11 , liftoff and rendez-vous , unreal scene , note that the video quality is almost irrelevant since the motion of the craft is the most interesting (and funny) part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GDxPAcO-h4

-from 45" to 1'45" note the moon surface , very close of that craft , you can almost feel that its only 2 or 3 meters away ... certainly not miles away , look the motion of the craft , does this look real to you ?

- at 1'43" as a bonus they seems to have simulated an shooting star!

- from 1'50" to 3'55" don't miss the approach prior to docking , a great moment in messed up science fiction effect.
notice the instantaneous stops of motion (including rotation) which are virtually impossible , except for these pioneer stunters that defy the law of motion !

LLL, you seem to have forgotten to respond to my post. That's a pity, I put quite a bit of work in it.

(Well, actually, it wasn't that much work at all, but still.)

well , according to your calculation , i have 47,6° +- FOV for the photo i submited as a small earth , wich given the supposed 54° FOV of that camera would mean that this earth is in fact too big ... , the problem is , i don't believe what we see is a genuine Earth , and i don't believe what we see is a 54° hassleblade FOV , so i keep my general feeling that this earth is too small (and too big if this is 'real' so anyway there is a problem there).

How would anybody at Grumman know whether the LM would be able to hover above the lunar surface, and gently land on the moon? And how would they know if the upper section would lift them off the lunar surface, and then be maneuvered into a precise docking with the CM, in lunar orbit?

They wouldn't know. How could they? All they saw was the exact same thing that everyone else saw - NASA's footage of the LM, on a TV set.

Grumman had no way of first-hand testing / observing the LM, within the same environment it was intended to perform. It's like asking Boeing to design a 747 that can plunge into the ocean and turn into a submarine, but they weren't allowed to test and observe it first-hand, to find out if it really works. But they will get to see the footage of it soon afterwards, on TV! (Of course, with no way of testing it, Boeing would really hope to hell that version #1 worked 100% perfectly, since it was going to have 300 tourists onboard during its 'maiden' voyage.)

Boeing employees gathered around the TV begin to cheer triumphantly, as they watch footage of the 747 plunge into the Atlantic, and smoothly convert into a submarine, with utter perfection!

And it obviously wasn't faked, because someone at Boeing would surely have blown the whistle by now!

I appreciate your support UTH , but i think 'pushing' that hard on my little 'find' , would not worth the time , i also think that they could very well have added that script aftermath , but they could have just done that at the time as well (don't underestimate them) , so this would be too much time for a minor detail , if this transcrip wouldn't have existed , sure this details would be major , but there is just nothing serious , and in a way , this transcrip strenghten the evidence that the descent engine should have left a visible crater , so it's not that bad afterall , since there is more serious and clear evidence , let's better focus on these ones , for example the famous 'waving flag' , the radiations , the lunar landing and liftoff (that all looks so fakes...) , and also the rendez-vous prior to docking , i don't see if you saw the video , don't miss them just in case .

No. The rest would be busy building what they hoped would be functioning, operational Moonships, able to withstand the very little understood environment of the lunar mission.

To say that by 1968-69, we "had built a wealth of knowledge" on what a manned lunar mission would encounter

we wouldn't need to spend $47 million trying to get the "wealth of knowledge" out there that we still don't have yet, but that we will need to get, before we can ever - ahem - "return" to the moon!

The sheer brilliance of this plan is that NASA was able to use the genuine elements to 'disappear', totally out of sight into LEO, which allowed them to hoax everything else in complete privacy, because we had no way of independently observing and verifying whether or not these 'final stages' of the event were indeed genuine.

How would anybody at Grumman know whether the LM would be able to hover above the lunar surface, and gently land on the moon? And how would they know if the upper section would lift them off the lunar surface, and then be maneuvered into a precise docking with the CM, in lunar orbit?

Grumman had no way of first-hand testing / observing the LM, within the same environment it was intended to perform

Well, one of the things they decided to explore was how you should actually conduct the mission, because this wasn't really covered in the -- in the Apollo RFQ at all. You were just told to propose on a particular vehicle, and it was just sort of loosely implied how the mission would be conducted. So, to come to the point, as a side operation and part of the basic GE team Apollo Program, there was a side group set up to look at various mission alternatives. And, there were five mission alternatives that were looked at, at that time. And, they just sort of drew out, among the teams, who would work on what by lots, and the Grumman team got to work on lunar orbital rendezvous, which was a very interesting choice. Because, at the end of the study period, we had to get together, and we compared what Douglas had done on their assigned mission, and what GE had done on theirs, and we all agreed that -- yeah, the way to do this mission was lunar orbital rendezvous. So, that was the recommended mission that went in as a part of that Apollo proposal. Well, as you can imagine, that sort of whetted our appetite here at Grumman, and after the Apollo proposal was turned in and done with, why, we went right ahead with these LOR studies, which were pointing to the design of something like a LEM at that time.

And, then when the decision was announced on the Apollo and it was clear that we weren't in on the CSM part of the Apollo, why, we devoted all the efforts then of our space study group, at that time, to the LEM concept. And the design concept, initially, was an extremely simple thing -- it was like a fellow sitting on a pair of handle bars, very much. But, it grew and grew, conceptually, until finally in our studies, we were -- oh, I guess, this was about April, say, of 1962, or so. By that time we were studying LEM type vehicles in a parametric form, looking at all different combinations, whether it should be a staged or unstaged vehicle; or what kind of engine complement it should have; do you really need throttleable engines, or could you use several discrete levels of engines; what kind of landing gear should you have on this thing, etc. We also, during that time, worked out all the weight tradeoff factors, which was to serve us in good stead later on, because it was obvious that was the dominating characteristic of the whole design.

So, anyway, when the RFQ for the LEM came out, why, I'd say that we were pretty well prepared. We had done an awful lot of background work and condensed it as well as we could in the RFQ. The reason that I was looking for the proposal is I wanted to show you what the vehicle looked like originally - it conceptually is the same as it is today, but, in almost every significant detail, it is different. And, there are reasons for all the differences.

What they wanted to launch into, and what they subsequently directed us to launch into, was an extensive preliminary design phase wherein every aspect of the design was gone over again, and just from a conceptual standpoint. And, oh, that phase, I would say, lasted from -- we started in January 1963 was when we officially got under contract and we were still, grossly, preliminary designing the vehicle for at least nine months after that; swapping tanks around, changing the number of landing gear, changing the shape of the cabin, and all that sort of thing.

ERTEL: The interface you had with Link on the simulator gave quite a bit of input into....

KELLY: Well, yes, Link is actually a subcontractor of ours, so, essentially, we give them direction, and information, they need in order to build the simulator.

ERTEL: I was wondering if it comes from here job responsibilities-- I mentioned, as one of the best contract awards -- just like turn another shoulder, and keep on "horning it."

KELLY: Yes, we have a training equipment operation that handles this, and, well, the simulator has been another case in point where it's a real complicated device -- this simulator, very fancy, and can do a lot of things, but it has a long-lead time on getting it developed and built, and, consequently, the need for information -- firm information -- for the simulator has outstripped our ability to provide it, because we didn't even have the firm information for the flight vehicle, when we needed it for the simulator. So, we have had to work out a deal there where we just froze the information level at a particular level, and we're building the simulators to that, and we are going to upgrade and update them, with modification kit that is coming along later. But, there wasn't much alternative on that sort of thing.

The other thing that has changed, which I didn't mention in the history here; but there has been quite an evolution in the required development test program on this vehicle. We started out with an extremely thorough test program, I mean, you would call it methodical, and, also, idealistic. We were going to do everything on an absolutely minimum risk basis, both from a technical standpoint, and a dollar risk. And, we've had to back off on some of those ideas under the press of schedules, dollar limitations, and what have you. I still think we have a very adequate program, but it's been scaled down quite a bit from the original version, and, consequently, every time you change one of these programs, why, you change the GSE requirements, because the GSE is also tied to the particular site, and the particular way you are going to run the test.

ERTEL: I believe that there was even some LEM tests figured in the Little Joe Program at the start.

KELLY: Yes, we had some Little Joe tests originally, and, oh, one thing we did in the first year of the program was -- we had a side group working very intensively at how far -- how could you simulate the lunar landing situation on earth; what was the best way to do it; could you do it with real hardware, and with a real flight vehicle, and did it pay to do it this way, etc. We went into that for well over a year . In the beginning of the program, everyone had an intuitive feel that -- gee, we ought to be able to rig up something with a helicopter, suspending of a LEM from a helicopter, or a balloon, or something like the Langley landing rig; there ought to be someway of taking a real vehicle and flying it down to touchdown, just as though it were on the moon.

Well, we finally figured out ways to do it, all right, from a technical standpoint; but it was an extremely expensive proposition, and there was still deficiencies in the simulation. We had one rig where you would have turbojet engines that would support five-sixth of the vehicle's weight, and the LEM would fly on gimbals inside that. Any scheme that you worked out, to try to simulate the lunar gravitational field on earth, tended to be very complicated, if you did it with a real LEM. The original idea was to land a real LEM. It turned out to be extremely complicated; they all had certain technical deficiencies - you couldn't say, well, now we've got it, we're absolutely simulating the moon - it still wasn't quite right, and we could also show that, in most cases, this device couldn't do the most critical type of maneuvers. For some reasons, or other, and they differed depending on the type of scheme you had in mind. You couldn't simulate the most difficult aspects of the mission.

So the conclusion that we came up with, and I guess this was a joint Grumman-NASA conclusion, after about a year of real heavy preliminary design work on this type of flying-landing vehicle, was that it was technically feasible to produce a limited approach to a free-flight landing vehicle simulation. But, if you tried to assess it on any sort of cost effectiveness yardsticks, and compare it with what you could get with a straight fixed-base simulation, it just didn't look like it paid. You were talking hundreds of millions of dollars before you were through with this thing, and it was a dead end. So, it was washed out of the program -- but after a lot of careful thought.

And, what we have in its place, of course, is we have a pretty good fixed base simulation program, like the old Link trainer, but with a pretty good visual display, and a real good mathematical simulation of the vehicle, and we can hook certain of the flight control hardware into this rig. Our FMES (Full Mission Engineering Simulator) will be operational in about another two months, and this is our final step in the progression. We've had several different levels of engineering simulators, starting out with a simple one that we could build quickly, and working up into quite a pair of quite good ones last year, but were still limited strictly to simulation. Now, this FMES will have the capability to do a complete mission from end to end, which the others couldn't do -- the others were all pieced together. And, also, on the FMES, we can hook in the hardware -- the critical hardware in the flight control system -- the autopilot type equipment can be hooked in and actually fly with the FMES, with the computer closing the vehicle dynamic loop. So, this is what we have, and it's a good engineering tool, and is a pretty good pilot training tool, crew training tool. Of course, for crew training, this is augmented by the Link mission simulator, which is really a trainer with a lot of capability. It can simulate malfunctions of all types, etc. That was kind of an interesting historical side line, I think.

jet's are in atmosphere and they don't stop their rotation instantly , these craft where supposed to be in no atmosphere in 0g , these maneuvering thrusters couldn't stop them instantly , and it's pretty clear they stopped instantly , they can't , this is impossible .

How would anybody at Grumman know whether the LM would be able to hover above the lunar surface, and gently land on the moon? And how would they know if the upper section would lift them off the lunar surface, and then be maneuvered into a precise docking with the CM, in lunar orbit?

They wouldn't know. How could they?

Sir Isaac Newton would have approved of such a practicle demonstration of his Third Law.

Grumman had no way of first-hand testing / observing the LM, within the same environment it was intended to perform. It's like asking Boeing to design a 747 that can plunge into the ocean and turn into a submarine, but they weren't allowed to test and observe it first-hand, to find out if it really works. But they will get to see the footage of it soon afterwards, on TV! (Of course, with no way of testing it, Boeing would really hope to hell that version #1 worked 100% perfectly, since it was going to have 300 tourists onboard during its 'maiden' voyage.)

Grumman designed, engineered, and built the LM along with hundreds of sub-contractors. They knew the thermal environment in space. They tested the LM subsystems in thermal chambers, vaccuum chambers, they dropped models to study landing dynamics. The people building the systems understood the environment in which it would operate.

When the 1st operational LM was finished, they took it to Earth orbit and tested every system they could...environmental control (what JW calls "air conditioning"), propulsion, guidance, pyrotechnics, staging, you name it. On the next mission, they took it to the Moon, and again went through every system they could while simulating the descent profile that would land them on the Moon.

About the only things that couldn't be "tested" were the hovering and landing, but based on the design and basic physics, they knew how it would behave.

The lunar vaccuum is virtually identical to the vaccuum of space. And the LM had been tested there twice manned and once unmanned. They had telemetry and human engineers on board during the testing. They knew what worked and what didn't.

The following LM flight took the testing to it's final step, an actual landing, a nail biter to be sure. It all worked pretty much as expected, aside from the initial underburn that resulted in a long landing.

Grumman "knew" all these things because their LM had done them before, during Earth testing and in space. They had the test flight data. The crews wern't just goofing around up there during the LM test flights.

We can also say our solar system is "understood". It's an entirely subjective term. Grumman understood there is no atmosphere in space, and that there is 1/6 gravity on the moon, and that the sunlit lunar surface is a fair bit hotter than Waikiki Beach. But that doesn't mean they understood everything about that environment(s).

And even if the environment had been 100% "understood", it doesn't mean that they would know if the LM can actually function properly in that environment.

Grumman was not doing any of the testing by this point - it was all in the hands of NASA. Grumman could not do any first-hand testing of the LM, it was all controlled by NASA from that point on. So after a few tests in space, NASA excitedly reports to Grumman that their latest LM tested perfectly. So who's any the wiser? Not Grumman, that's for sure!

Landing and hovering are hardly minor, insignificant operations to leave untested! And you forgot a major op - the upper-section LM lift-off from the moon. Entirely untested, and supposedly, it worked perfectly, the first time it was ever tried, with Apollo 11 !! Unbelievable!!

Again, Grumman was not involved in the LM space tests, period. They only knew what NASA told them. Period. And the LM was not (could not) tested on Earth for the most primary, critical functions - landing, hovering, or upper-stage ascent, etc. - it had to be able to perform - in space and on the moon - faultlessly.

That's when fairy tales came true, as long as you believe in NASA's version.

It's another example of how people will believe whatever the "official story" is, even when it is a blatant fraud.

Grumman was not doing any of the testing by this point - it was all in the hands of NASA. Grumman could not do any first-hand testing of the LM, it was all controlled by NASA from that point on. So after a few tests in space, NASA excitedly reports to Grumman that their latest LM tested perfectly. So who's any the wiser? Not Grumman, that's for sure!



Landing and hovering are hardly minor, insignificant operations to leave untested! And you forgot a major op - the upper-section LM lift-off from the moon. Entirely untested, and supposedly, it worked perfectly, the first time it was ever tried, with Apollo 11 !! Unbelievable!!



Again, Grumman was not involved in the LM space tests, period. They only knew what NASA told them. Period. And the LM was not (could not) tested on Earth for the most primary, critical functions - landing, hovering, or upper-stage ascent, etc. - it had to be able to perform - in space and on the moon - faultlessly.

That's when fairy tales came true, as long as you believe in NASA's version.

Thinking about why Apollo's feats have never been matched in 40 years, I recalled something postie said awhile back about the Trieste, which is still baffling me. It was this..

"I have no idea whether the Trieste made it or not. My gut instinct, based on what I've read, says there is no reason to disbelieve it"

The problem I have is that there is an overwhelming reason to disbelieve in the Trieste story.

And you forgot a major op - the upper-section LM lift-off from the moon.

Entirely untested, and supposedly, it worked perfectly, the first time it was ever tried, with Apollo 11 !! Unbelievable!!

It's called the ascent stage.



Totally unbelievable, and totally untrue...(cough...Apollo 9, Apollo 10)


Why should anyone take you seriously when you keep getting the VERY BASICS of the Moon landings so WRONG???

I dont think you understand. I have figured something out after all these years here...it isnt about the truth, or the facts, it is about the conspiricy. Some people just love conspiricies and stick with them in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You can see it here with so many people, (not just picking on turbo here, it is something in general I have seen) who have gobs of information, but somehow miss the fundemental things that negate huge chunks of the conspiricy. Some folks here will only study the conspiricy and never the full subject; they only draw their information from ct sites so their data is so one sided it is painful. (again, not speaking of you turnonium but responding to the above question in a more general manner) It is really frustrating to deal with time and time again which is why I dont both for the most part. I just kind of shake my head when I read things that are so obviously misunderstood, yet claimed as fact...

But yet people still go round and round with hard core ct's that are obviously in love with conspiricies and nothing will change that. I dont get it. I figured out a long time ago that some people just love conspiricies so much that no amount of evidence will matter, you could put them in a rocket ship and personally take them to tranquility base and they still wouldnt believe what they were seeing and claim it was just recently planted. It is futile. Really. You arent going to change any hard core ct's opinion; I have watched you guys argue around in circles, pin people down on a specific point of the conspiricy and show them how it was wrong, only to have the matter come up again some time later worded differently.

It is like beating your head against a brick wall; it feels so good when you stop...

Again, Grumman was not involved in the LM space tests, period. They only knew what NASA told them. Period. And the LM was not (could not) tested on Earth for the most primary, critical functions - landing, hovering, or upper-stage ascent, etc. - it had to be able to perform - in space and on the moon - faultlessly.

That's when fairy tales came true, as long as you believe in NASA's version.

I dont think you understand. I have figured something out after all these years here...it isnt about the truth, or the facts, it is about the conspiricy. Some people just love conspiricies and stick with them in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. You can see it here with so many people, (not just picking on turbo here, it is something in general I have seen) who have gobs of information, but somehow miss the fundemental things that negate huge chunks of the conspiricy. Some folks here will only study the conspiricy and never the full subject; they only draw their information from ct sites so their data is so one sided it is painful. (again, not speaking of you turnonium but responding to the above question in a more general manner) It is really frustrating to deal with time and time again which is why I dont both for the most part. I just kind of shake my head when I read things that are so obviously misunderstood, yet claimed as fact...

But yet people still go round and round with hard core ct's that are obviously in love with conspiricies and nothing will change that. I dont get it. I figured out a long time ago that some people just love conspiricies so much that no amount of evidence will matter, you could put them in a rocket ship and personally take them to tranquility base and they still wouldnt believe what they were seeing and claim it was just recently planted. It is futile. Really. You arent going to change any hard core ct's opinion; I have watched you guys argue around in circles, pin people down on a specific point of the conspiricy and show them how it was wrong, only to have the matter come up again some time later worded differently.

It is like beating your head against a brick wall; it feels so good when you stop...

It is futile. Really.

You arent going to change any hard core ct's opinion...

the pressure will be a continuous pressure of a flow of gas , and i don't know that official pressure at all , but given the video of the landing (that i know are total fakes anyway) based on these video we should see a crater under these nozzle (less than 40 centimeters of the ground for most of them) , if you want the real official pressure , you need to know the density and velocity of the exhaust gas at exit nozzle at least , but nasa didn't say anything about this specification , because as always they lost every single technical specification of the historical masterpiece that allegedly landed man on the moon , how strange is this ?

Yes...it does seem futile, doesn't it?

Yet, I live for the question that may come up, and that moment when someone is stimulated to learn, and does it!

It's rare, but it's worth the effort put forth before. I rather like the feeling of someone learning something, and realizing that they've learned something. It may be one in a hundred...but one in a hundred means some success has been accomplished.

Actually, while I never doubted that the moon landings actually happened, I have still learned a lot from lurking in the background here, so please keep it up

Cheers,
Badeskov