Discussion:
Did the Apollo 11 land on the Moon?
Add Reply
c***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 20:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There are physical discrepancies regarding the Apollo 11 lunar mission that dispute the actual occurrence of the Apollo 11 lunar mission. During the Apollo 11 lander descent to the surface of the moon, the lander (2,504 lb moon wt.) achieves a downward velocity estimated at 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine ignites and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is indicitive of a rocket engine thrust yet the lunar descent video does not depict any rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of rocket smoke but the production of rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke. In another argument, the Aerozine rocket fuel is said to burn clean and does not produce any smoke but Aerozine rocket fuel that is used in the Trident missile launch produces an enormous amount of rocket smoke (video 1). The non-existence of rocket smoke in the Apollo 11 videos contests the landing of the lander onto the lunar surface. The descent video of the lunar lander also shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a rocket thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander using horizontal rocket thrusters during the lunar descent. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the main engine of the LLRV is a jet that would not function on the moon and a rocket engine would require 20 times more fuel to produce the LLRV flight depicted in the videos. One of the most compelling reason to question the Apollo 11 mission is the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows boot prints just below the lander's exhaust nozzle.

In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects on a level surface yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the angles of the shadows formed by objects on a level lunar surface. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 38), a rock and the lander, on a near level surface, are separated by the distance of 100 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the Sun's intensity reflected by the earth is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth would form two separate shadows yet each lunar object forms a single shadow. The varying angles of the lunar shadows prove the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated in a large movie studio with a light source attached to the ceiling. Also, the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 39a,b) depict part of the cross hairs in the back of a lunar object but the cross hairs are etched into a glass plate within the camera which would result in the cross hairs to always be in front of all the lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs show part of the cross hairs behind the lunar object. Furthermore, no photographs were taken that included the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut while on the surface of the moon since if the stars appeared in any of the photographs, every photograph would require the stars' positions to align with a specific time which would be extremely difficult to emulate. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon (video 3). The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely nervous when asked the question regarding why no stars appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. NASA justifies the absence of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs but the background of the celestial universe in the Apollo 11 photographs is pitch black which would result in a few of the higher intensity stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. If the reflected Sun light prevents the stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs, the background stellar universe of the Apollo 11 photographs would appear gray yet the Apollo 11 photograph's background celestial universe is pitch black, and, a lens hood would block the reflected lunar light from entering the camera lens which would allow the stars to appear the the Apollo 11 photographs. In the photographs taken at the international space station, during the day, stars appear in the ISS photographs yet none of the photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission contain any stars.

The lunar surface is said to reach the temperature of 220o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronauts to experience heat stroke after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. A water capillary coolant system is said to cool the outer surface of the astronauts to prevent the astronauts from perishing from the intense heat that would accumulate after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is used to justify the Apollo 11 space suit water coolant system is insignificant since the reflected solar light would result in the space suit to absorb an enormous amount solar light energy. It would require an air conditioner unit and batteries to cool the interior of the Apollo 11 space suit to allow the astronauts to survive on the lunar surface for 2.5 hours. Example, if a person walked on the surface of Death Valley (120o F) in an enclosed suit for 2.5 hr it would require an air conditioning unit and batteries to maintain a temperature to sustain the person at a comfortable temperature. Furthermore, the original video of Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event is a distorted video taken indirectly by a television camera videoing Armstrong walking on the lunar surface that was projected from a NASA monitor (video 5). There is a problem regarding the position of the video camera that extents from the side of the lander (fig 40) and Armstrong making his first step onto the moon's surface since Armstrong takes three steps away from the lander towards the video camera after stepping on the lunar surface yet the video camera is attached to the side of the lander and is approximately two meter from the ladder and pointing parallel to the side of the lander. Furthermore, in a video, an Apollo astronaut is shown placing a flag on the surface of the moon but in the video, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind (video 6) yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of a flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 video. It is argued that the momentum of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag pole onto the moon's surface causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan in a movie studio. Furthermore, NASA justifies the lunar mission using moon rocks but the moon rocks could be meteors that landed on the surface of the earth and passed off as moon rocks.



....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



The power of the radio signal produce by the Apollo 11 lander is estimated at 50 Watts. A radio signal's intensity is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = U2 = {[A cos(kr)]/r]}2 where A represents the power of the radio signal. After a radio signal propagates the distance of 238,000 miles (3.8 x 108 m) to the earth, a 50 W radio signal's intensity would diminish to I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (3.8 x 108 m)2 = 8.65 x 10-15 W2/m2. The Parkes radio dish antenna located in Sydney Australia was used to communicate with the Apollo 11 mission. The sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is extrapolated using the radio signal intensity formed by a 300 km height communication satellite that emits a 20 W radio signal and produces an radio signal intensity at the surface of the earth of I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (20 W)2 (.5) / (3 x 105m)2 = 2.22 x 10-9 W2/m2; adding two orders of magnitude to the satellite radio signal's intensity that forms at the surface of the earth, the sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is estimated at 10-11 W2/m2. There is a four order of magnitude difference between the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes radio telescope and the 10-15 W2 /m2 s-band radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. Also, a radio signal cannot penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. It is argue that a satellite that is orbiting the earth at a height of 30,000 km above the earth that is passed the Van Allen belt justifies the functionality of the Apollo 11 communication system but the described satellite height is 20 % of the distance to the moon which is a doubtful magnitude for the height for orbiting communication satellite. NASA uses the Voyager to justify the communication system of the Apollo 11 mission but NASA states that the Voyager is sending back a 50 W radio signal from a distance of over 1 billion miles (1.61 x 1012m) from the earth which would produce a radio signal of I = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (1.61 x 1012 m)2 = 5 x 10-22 W2/m2 at the earth that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes (10-11 W2/m2). NASA engineers have not yet establish the maximum range of a radio signal.
c***@gmail.com
2019-05-13 20:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I did a little calculation regarding the fuel required to propagate to the moon and back to the earth.

The amount of fuel required to decelerate the Apollo 11 Command/Service Module (CSM) and Lander (L) after reaching the moon is calculated. The kinetic energy of Apollo 11 command-service module and lander (CSML) that is propagating to the moon is calculated using the distance to the moon (363,104,000 m) and the time that the Apollo 11 space craft (CSML) propagated to the moon (4 days 6 hours and 45 minutes [364,900 seconds]),




v = (distance)/(time) = (363,104,000 m)/(364,900 s) = 983 m/s.......................................................85




The total mass of the command, service modules and lander (CSML) is,




(CM) + (SM) + (L) = 5,560 kg + 24,520 kg + 16,400 kg = 49,480 kg................................................86




Using equations 85 an 86, the kinetic energy of the Apollo 11 CSML is calculated,




1/2 mv2 = (.5)(49,480 kg)(983 m/s)2 = 2.39 x 1010 J.........................................................................87




Using the kinetic energy of the CSML (equ 87) and the energy of a kilogram of rocket fuel (4.2 x 107 J/kg), the minimum amount of fuel required to decelerate the CSML is calculated,




Fuel mass = (KE)/(fuel energy) = (2.39 x 1010 J)/(4.2 x 107 J/kg) = 569 kg...................................88




Using the rocket engine efficiency of 1% and the result of equation 88,




(569 kg)/X = .01 -------------> X = 56,900 kg......................................................................................89




It would require approximately 56,900 kg of fuel (equ 89) to decelerate the 49,480 kg CSML after reaching the moon on a straight path and an additional 60,000 kg of fuel to allow the CSML to orbit the moon. On the return trip back to the earth using the velocity of 983 m/s and CSM weight of 30,000 kg, less the lander weight, it would require an additional 19,500 kg of fuel to accelerate the CSM for the trip back to the earth and an additional 15,000 kg of fuel to decelerate the CSM at the earth which represents a total fuel load of the Apollo 11 CSM space craft of approximately 100,000 kg yet according to NASA the CSM contains a total fuel load of 18,410 kg.

NSA is using a halve circle trajectory of the CSML to the moon that results in the direction of the CSML to change 90o after reaching the moon allowing the CSML to orbit the moon. The formation of the half circle trajectory of the CSML requires using more than 200 incremental rocket thrusts directed perpendicular to the motion of the CSML but the total fuel of the 200 incremental rocket thrusts would be equal to the total fuel [59,000 kg (eq 59)] used to decelerate the 938 m/s CMSL plus the fuel (63,000 kg) to accelerate the CMSL to the velocity of 1.1 km/s in the direction tangent to the moon's orbital path which represents a total fuel load of 122,000 kg of the 200 incremental rocket thrusts yet according to NASA the total fuel contained int the CSML is 18,181 kg. It is argued that the earth's gravitational force produces the halve circle trajectory of the CSML but the earth's gravitational force on the CSML is negligible since the astronaut in space are weightless and is not effect by the earth's gravity. In addition, the CSML does not possess an intermediate size rocket thruster required in forming the more than 200 perpendicular thrusts used to form the semi-circular trajectory of the CSML to the moon depicted by NASA.


.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................



The 1 % efficiency of a rocket engine used in equation 89 is extrapolated using the kinetic energy of the CMSL propagating to the moon on a straight path at the velocity of 938 m/s,



1/2 mv2 = (.5)(49,480 kg)(983 m/s)2 = 2.39 x 1010 J.......................................................................................................90



The Saturn V rocket total fuel load is 2,725,600 kg and the energy density of rocket fuel is 4.2 x 107 J/kg that is used to determine the total energy of the rocket used in the Apollo 11 launch,


Fuel Energy = (mass fuel) x (energy density of fuel) = (2.72 x 106 kg) x (4.2 x 107 J/kg) = 1.142 x 1014 J....................91



Dividing the kinetic energy KE of the CMSL by the energy of the rocket fuel used in the Saturn V rocket depicts the efficiency of the Saturn rocket engine,



Efficiency = (KE)/(energy of fuel) = (2.39 x 1010 J)/(1.142 x 1014) = .0002 or .02 %.......................................................92



Multiply the efficiency by 50 times to normalize the effect of the earth's gravity forms an efficiency of free space rocket engine of approximately 1 %. The efficiency of a rocket engine is verified using a jet that is said to represents an efficiency of approximately 50 %. The A320 air bus
Sylvia Else
2019-05-14 06:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
I did a little calculation regarding the fuel required to propagate
to the moon and back to the earth.
The amount of fuel required to decelerate the Apollo 11
Command/Service Module (CSM) and Lander (L) after reaching the moon
is calculated. The kinetic energy of Apollo 11 command-service module
and lander (CSML) that is propagating to the moon is calculated using
the distance to the moon (363,104,000 m) and the time that the Apollo
11 space craft (CSML) propagated to the moon (4 days 6 hours and 45
minutes [364,900 seconds]),
v = (distance)/(time) = (363,104,000 m)/(364,900 s) = 983
m/s.......................................................85
Was the velocity constant? Wouldn't the gravity of the Earth and Moon
have been relevant.
Post by c***@gmail.com
The total mass of the command, service modules and lander (CSML) is,
(CM) + (SM) + (L) = 5,560 kg + 24,520 kg + 16,400 kg = 49,480
kg................................................86
Using equations 85 an 86, the kinetic energy of the Apollo 11 CSML is calculated,
1/2 mv2 = (.5)(49,480 kg)(983 m/s)2 = 2.39 x 1010
J.........................................................................87
If you've got the speed right, which you haven't.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Using the kinetic energy of the CSML (equ 87) and the energy of a
kilogram of rocket fuel (4.2 x 107 J/kg), the minimum amount of fuel
required to decelerate the CSML is calculated,
Fuel mass = (KE)/(fuel energy) = (2.39 x 1010 J)/(4.2 x 107 J/kg) =
569 kg...................................88
Run that past me again. Shouldn't you be doing a momentum calculation here?

Anyway, did the service module stop when it got to the Moon? I was under
the vague impression that it went into orbit, with the only fuel
required being that to change its path from an trajectory that would
return to Earth to one that would stay in orbit around the moon.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Using the rocket engine efficiency of 1% and the result of equation 88,
Yes, why not just pull a convenient number of the hat. Who's going to
question it?
Post by c***@gmail.com
(569 kg)/X = .01 -------------> X = 56,900
kg......................................................................................89
It would require approximately 56,900 kg of fuel (equ 89) to
Given how this number was derived, and the seriously flawed assumptions
that when into the calculation, it's safe to say that that is complete
nonsense.

What is the point of posting such rubbish?

Sylvia.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-13 23:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What keeps the Russians and Chinese Govts. from spilling the beans?
Post by c***@gmail.com
There are physical discrepancies regarding the Apollo 11 lunar mission that dispute the actual occurrence of the Apollo 11 lunar mission. During the Apollo 11 lander descent to the surface of the moon, the lander (2,504 lb moon wt.) achieves a downward velocity estimated at 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine ignites and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is indicitive of a rocket engine thrust yet the lunar descent video does not depict any rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of rocket smoke but the production of rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke. In another argument, the Aerozine rocket fuel is said to burn clean and does not produce any smoke but Aerozine rocket fuel that is used in the Trident missile launch produces an enormous amount of rocket smoke (video 1). The non-existence of rocket smoke in the Apollo 11 videos contests the landing of the lander onto the lunar surface. The descent video of the lunar lander also shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a rocket thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander using horizontal rocket thrusters during the lunar descent. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the main engine of the LLRV is a jet that would not function on the moon and a rocket engine would require 20 times more fuel to produce the LLRV flight depicted in the videos. One of the most compelling reason to question the Apollo 11 mission is the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows boot prints just below the lander's exhaust nozzle.
In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects on a level surface yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the angles of the shadows formed by objects on a level lunar surface. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 38), a rock and the lander, on a near level surface, are separated by the distance of 100 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the Sun's intensity reflected by the earth is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth would form two separate shadows yet each lunar object forms a single shadow. The varying angles of the lunar shadows prove the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated in a large movie studio with a light source attached to the ceiling. Also, the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 39a,b) depict part of the cross hairs in the back of a lunar object but the cross hairs are etched into a glass plate within the camera which would result in the cross hairs to always be in front of all the lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs show part of the cross hairs behind the lunar object. Furthermore, no photographs were taken that included the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut while on the surface of the moon since if the stars appeared in any of the photographs, every photograph would require the stars' positions to align with a specific time which would be extremely difficult to emulate. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon (video 3). The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely nervous when asked the question regarding why no stars appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. NASA justifies the absence of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs but the background of the celestial universe in the Apollo 11 photographs is pitch black which would result in a few of the higher intensity stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. If the reflected Sun light prevents the stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs, the background stellar universe of the Apollo 11 photographs would appear gray yet the Apollo 11 photograph's background celestial universe is pitch black, and, a lens hood would block the reflected lunar light from entering the camera lens which would allow the stars to appear the the Apollo 11 photographs. In the photographs taken at the international space station, during the day, stars appear in the ISS photographs yet none of the photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission contain any stars.
The lunar surface is said to reach the temperature of 220o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronauts to experience heat stroke after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. A water capillary coolant system is said to cool the outer surface of the astronauts to prevent the astronauts from perishing from the intense heat that would accumulate after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is used to justify the Apollo 11 space suit water coolant system is insignificant since the reflected solar light would result in the space suit to absorb an enormous amount solar light energy. It would require an air conditioner unit and batteries to cool the interior of the Apollo 11 space suit to allow the astronauts to survive on the lunar surface for 2.5 hours. Example, if a person walked on the surface of Death Valley (120o F) in an enclosed suit for 2.5 hr it would require an air conditioning unit and batteries to maintain a temperature to sustain the person at a comfortable temperature. Furthermore, the original video of Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event is a distorted video taken indirectly by a television camera videoing Armstrong walking on the lunar surface that was projected from a NASA monitor (video 5). There is a problem regarding the position of the video camera that extents from the side of the lander (fig 40) and Armstrong making his first step onto the moon's surface since Armstrong takes three steps away from the lander towards the video camera after stepping on the lunar surface yet the video camera is attached to the side of the lander and is approximately two meter from the ladder and pointing parallel to the side of the lander. Furthermore, in a video, an Apollo astronaut is shown placing a flag on the surface of the moon but in the video, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind (video 6) yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of a flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 video. It is argued that the momentum of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag pole onto the moon's surface causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan in a movie studio. Furthermore, NASA justifies the lunar mission using moon rocks but the moon rocks could be meteors that landed on the surface of the earth and passed off as moon rocks.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The power of the radio signal produce by the Apollo 11 lander is estimated at 50 Watts. A radio signal's intensity is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = U2 = {[A cos(kr)]/r]}2 where A represents the power of the radio signal. After a radio signal propagates the distance of 238,000 miles (3.8 x 108 m) to the earth, a 50 W radio signal's intensity would diminish to I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (3.8 x 108 m)2 = 8.65 x 10-15 W2/m2. The Parkes radio dish antenna located in Sydney Australia was used to communicate with the Apollo 11 mission. The sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is extrapolated using the radio signal intensity formed by a 300 km height communication satellite that emits a 20 W radio signal and produces an radio signal intensity at the surface of the earth of I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (20 W)2 (.5) / (3 x 105m)2 = 2.22 x 10-9 W2/m2; adding two orders of magnitude to the satellite radio signal's intensity that forms at the surface of the earth, the sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is estimated at 10-11 W2/m2. There is a four order of magnitude difference between the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes radio telescope and the 10-15 W2 /m2 s-band radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. Also, a radio signal cannot penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. It is argue that a satellite that is orbiting the earth at a height of 30,000 km above the earth that is passed the Van Allen belt justifies the functionality of the Apollo 11 communication system but the described satellite height is 20 % of the distance to the moon which is a doubtful magnitude for the height for orbiting communication satellite. NASA uses the Voyager to justify the communication system of the Apollo 11 mission but NASA states that the Voyager is sending back a 50 W radio signal from a distance of over 1 billion miles (1.61 x 1012m) from the earth which would produce a radio signal of I = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (1.61 x 1012 m)2 = 5 x 10-22 W2/m2 at the earth that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes (10-11 W2/m2). NASA engineers have not yet establish the maximum range of a radio signal.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 01:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019 09:34:31 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

As they are not, we live in a one world govt run by liars.
Post by Arindam Banerjee
What keeps the Russians and Chinese Govts. from spilling the beans?
Post by c***@gmail.com
There are physical discrepancies regarding the Apollo 11 lunar mission that dispute the actual occurrence of the Apollo 11 lunar mission. During the Apollo 11 lander descent to the surface of the moon, the lander (2,504 lb moon wt.) achieves a downward velocity estimated at 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine ignites and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is indicitive of a rocket engine thrust yet the lunar descent video does not depict any rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of rocket smoke but the production of rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke. In another argument, the Aerozine rocket fuel is said to burn clean and does not produce any smoke but Aerozine rocket fuel that is used in the Trident missile launch produces an enormous amount of rocket smoke (video 1). The non-existence of rocket smoke in the Apollo 11 videos contests the landing of the lander onto the lunar surface. The descent video of the lunar lander also shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a rocket thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander using horizontal rocket thrusters during the lunar descent. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the main engine of the LLRV is a jet that would not function on the moon and a rocket engine would require 20 times more fuel to produce the LLRV flight depicted in the videos. One of the most compelling reason to question the Apollo 11 mission is the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows boot prints just below the lander's exhaust nozzle.
In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects on a level surface yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the angles of the shadows formed by objects on a level lunar surface. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 38), a rock and the lander, on a near level surface, are separated by the distance of 100 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the Sun's intensity reflected by the earth is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth would form two separate shadows yet each lunar object forms a single shadow. The varying angles of the lunar shadows prove the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated in a large movie studio with a light source attached to the ceiling. Also, the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 39a,b) depict part of the cross hairs in the back of a lunar object but the cross hairs are etched into a glass plate within the camera which would result in the cross hairs to always be in front of all the lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs show part of the cross hairs behind the lunar object. Furthermore, no photographs were taken that included the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut while on the surface of the moon since if the stars appeared in any of the photographs, every photograph would require the stars' positions to align with a specific time which would be extremely difficult to emulate. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon (video 3). The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely nervous when asked the question regarding why no stars appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. NASA justifies the absence of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs but the background of the celestial universe in the Apollo 11 photographs is pitch black which would result in a few of the higher intensity stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. If the reflected Sun light prevents the stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs, the background stellar universe of the Apollo 11 photographs would appear gray yet the Apollo 11 photograph's background celestial universe is pitch black, and, a lens hood would block the reflected lunar light from entering the camera lens which would allow the stars to appear the the Apollo 11 photographs. In the photographs taken at the international space station, during the day, stars appear in the ISS photographs yet none of the photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission contain any stars.
The lunar surface is said to reach the temperature of 220o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronauts to experience heat stroke after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. A water capillary coolant system is said to cool the outer surface of the astronauts to prevent the astronauts from perishing from the intense heat that would accumulate after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is used to justify the Apollo 11 space suit water coolant system is insignificant since the reflected solar light would result in the space suit to absorb an enormous amount solar light energy. It would require an air conditioner unit and batteries to cool the interior of the Apollo 11 space suit to allow the astronauts to survive on the lunar surface for 2.5 hours. Example, if a person walked on the surface of Death Valley (120o F) in an enclosed suit for 2.5 hr it would require an air conditioning unit and batteries to maintain a temperature to sustain the person at a comfortable temperature. Furthermore, the original video of Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event is a distorted video taken indirectly by a television camera videoing Armstrong walking on the lunar surface that was projected from a NASA monitor (video 5). There is a problem regarding the position of the video camera that extents from the side of the lander (fig 40) and Armstrong making his first step onto the moon's surface since Armstrong takes three steps away from the lander towards the video camera after stepping on the lunar surface yet the video camera is attached to the side of the lander and is approximately two meter from the ladder and pointing parallel to the side of the lander. Furthermore, in a video, an Apollo astronaut is shown placing a flag on the surface of the moon but in the video, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind (video 6) yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of a flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 video. It is argued that the momentum of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag pole onto the moon's surface causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan in a movie studio. Furthermore, NASA justifies the lunar mission using moon rocks but the moon rocks could be meteors that landed on the surface of the earth and passed off as moon rocks.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The power of the radio signal produce by the Apollo 11 lander is estimated at 50 Watts. A radio signal's intensity is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = U2 = {[A cos(kr)]/r]}2 where A represents the power of the radio signal. After a radio signal propagates the distance of 238,000 miles (3.8 x 108 m) to the earth, a 50 W radio signal's intensity would diminish to I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (3.8 x 108 m)2 = 8.65 x 10-15 W2/m2. The Parkes radio dish antenna located in Sydney Australia was used to communicate with the Apollo 11 mission. The sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is extrapolated using the radio signal intensity formed by a 300 km height communication satellite that emits a 20 W radio signal and produces an radio signal intensity at the surface of the earth of I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (20 W)2 (.5) / (3 x 105m)2 = 2.22 x 10-9 W2/m2; adding two orders of magnitude to the satellite radio signal's intensity that forms at the surface of the earth, the sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is estimated at 10-11 W2/m2. There is a four order of magnitude difference between the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes radio telescope and the 10-15 W2 /m2 s-band radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. Also, a radio signal cannot penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. It is argue that a satellite that is orbiting the earth at a height of 30,000 km above the earth that is passed the Van Allen belt justifies the functionality of the Apollo 11 communication system but the described satellite height is 20 % of the distance to the moon which is a doubtful magnitude for the height for orbiting communication satellite. NASA uses the Voyager to justify the communication system of the Apollo 11 mission but NASA states that the Voyager is sending back a 50 W radio signal from a distance of over 1 billion miles (1.61 x 1012m) from the earth which would produce a radio signal of I = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (1.61 x 1012 m)2 = 5 x 10-22 W2/m2 at the earth that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes (10-11 W2/m2). NASA engineers have not yet establish the maximum range of a radio signal.
p***@gmail.com
2019-05-14 03:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
There are physical discrepancies regarding the Apollo 11 lunar mission that dispute the actual occurrence of the Apollo 11 lunar mission. During the Apollo 11 lander descent to the surface of the moon, the lander (2,504 lb moon wt.) achieves a downward velocity estimated at 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine ignites and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is indicitive of a rocket engine thrust yet the lunar descent video does not depict any rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of rocket smoke but the production of rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke. In another argument, the Aerozine rocket fuel is said to burn clean and does not produce any smoke but Aerozine rocket fuel that is used in the Trident missile launch produces an enormous amount of rocket smoke (video 1). The non-existence of rocket smoke in the Apollo 11 videos contests the landing of the lander onto the lunar surface. The descent video of the lunar lander also shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a rocket thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander using horizontal rocket thrusters during the lunar descent. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the main engine of the LLRV is a jet that would not function on the moon and a rocket engine would require 20 times more fuel to produce the LLRV flight depicted in the videos. One of the most compelling reason to question the Apollo 11 mission is the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows boot prints just below the lander's exhaust nozzle.
In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects on a level surface yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the angles of the shadows formed by objects on a level lunar surface. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 38), a rock and the lander, on a near level surface, are separated by the distance of 100 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the Sun's intensity reflected by the earth is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth would form two separate shadows yet each lunar object forms a single shadow. The varying angles of the lunar shadows prove the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated in a large movie studio with a light source attached to the ceiling. Also, the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 39a,b) depict part of the cross hairs in the back of a lunar object but the cross hairs are etched into a glass plate within the camera which would result in the cross hairs to always be in front of all the lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs show part of the cross hairs behind the lunar object. Furthermore, no photographs were taken that included the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut while on the surface of the moon since if the stars appeared in any of the photographs, every photograph would require the stars' positions to align with a specific time which would be extremely difficult to emulate. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon (video 3). The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely nervous when asked the question regarding why no stars appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. NASA justifies the absence of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs but the background of the celestial universe in the Apollo 11 photographs is pitch black which would result in a few of the higher intensity stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. If the reflected Sun light prevents the stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs, the background stellar universe of the Apollo 11 photographs would appear gray yet the Apollo 11 photograph's background celestial universe is pitch black, and, a lens hood would block the reflected lunar light from entering the camera lens which would allow the stars to appear the the Apollo 11 photographs. In the photographs taken at the international space station, during the day, stars appear in the ISS photographs yet none of the photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission contain any stars.
The lunar surface is said to reach the temperature of 220o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronauts to experience heat stroke after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. A water capillary coolant system is said to cool the outer surface of the astronauts to prevent the astronauts from perishing from the intense heat that would accumulate after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is used to justify the Apollo 11 space suit water coolant system is insignificant since the reflected solar light would result in the space suit to absorb an enormous amount solar light energy. It would require an air conditioner unit and batteries to cool the interior of the Apollo 11 space suit to allow the astronauts to survive on the lunar surface for 2.5 hours. Example, if a person walked on the surface of Death Valley (120o F) in an enclosed suit for 2.5 hr it would require an air conditioning unit and batteries to maintain a temperature to sustain the person at a comfortable temperature. Furthermore, the original video of Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event is a distorted video taken indirectly by a television camera videoing Armstrong walking on the lunar surface that was projected from a NASA monitor (video 5). There is a problem regarding the position of the video camera that extents from the side of the lander (fig 40) and Armstrong making his first step onto the moon's surface since Armstrong takes three steps away from the lander towards the video camera after stepping on the lunar surface yet the video camera is attached to the side of the lander and is approximately two meter from the ladder and pointing parallel to the side of the lander. Furthermore, in a video, an Apollo astronaut is shown placing a flag on the surface of the moon but in the video, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind (video 6) yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of a flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 video. It is argued that the momentum of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag pole onto the moon's surface causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan in a movie studio. Furthermore, NASA justifies the lunar mission using moon rocks but the moon rocks could be meteors that landed on the surface of the earth and passed off as moon rocks.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The power of the radio signal produce by the Apollo 11 lander is estimated at 50 Watts. A radio signal's intensity is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = U2 = {[A cos(kr)]/r]}2 where A represents the power of the radio signal. After a radio signal propagates the distance of 238,000 miles (3.8 x 108 m) to the earth, a 50 W radio signal's intensity would diminish to I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (3.8 x 108 m)2 = 8.65 x 10-15 W2/m2. The Parkes radio dish antenna located in Sydney Australia was used to communicate with the Apollo 11 mission. The sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is extrapolated using the radio signal intensity formed by a 300 km height communication satellite that emits a 20 W radio signal and produces an radio signal intensity at the surface of the earth of I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (20 W)2 (.5) / (3 x 105m)2 = 2.22 x 10-9 W2/m2; adding two orders of magnitude to the satellite radio signal's intensity that forms at the surface of the earth, the sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is estimated at 10-11 W2/m2. There is a four order of magnitude difference between the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes radio telescope and the 10-15 W2 /m2 s-band radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. Also, a radio signal cannot penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. It is argue that a satellite that is orbiting the earth at a height of 30,000 km above the earth that is passed the Van Allen belt justifies the functionality of the Apollo 11 communication system but the described satellite height is 20 % of the distance to the moon which is a doubtful magnitude for the height for orbiting communication satellite. NASA uses the Voyager to justify the communication system of the Apollo 11 mission but NASA states that the Voyager is sending back a 50 W radio signal from a distance of over 1 billion miles (1.61 x 1012m) from the earth which would produce a radio signal of I = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (1.61 x 1012 m)2 = 5 x 10-22 W2/m2 at the earth that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes (10-11 W2/m2). NASA engineers have not yet establish the maximum range of a radio signal.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/apollo-11-hoax-photos--8-moon-landing-myths-busted/
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 04:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his helmet.
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
There are physical discrepancies regarding the Apollo 11 lunar mission that dispute the actual occurrence of the Apollo 11 lunar mission. During the Apollo 11 lander descent to the surface of the moon, the lander (2,504 lb moon wt.) achieves a downward velocity estimated at 2 km/s then the lander's rocket engine ignites and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb that reduces the lander's downward velocity. Near the moon's surface the lander's thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is indicitive of a rocket engine thrust yet the lunar descent video does not depict any rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to justify the non-existence of rocket smoke but the production of rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke. In another argument, the Aerozine rocket fuel is said to burn clean and does not produce any smoke but Aerozine rocket fuel that is used in the Trident missile launch produces an enormous amount of rocket smoke (video 1). The non-existence of rocket smoke in the Apollo 11 videos contests the landing of the lander onto the lunar surface. The descent video of the lunar lander also shows the lander propagating in a horizontal direction that would require a rocket thrust in the horizontal direction and a constant center of mass of the lander yet the lander would experience an enormous change in the center of mass because of the fuel being consumed during the landing which would shift the center of mass and render it impossible for the horizontal motion of the lander using horizontal rocket thrusters during the lunar descent. The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) is used to justify the lander propagating in the horizontal direction but the main engine of the LLRV is a jet that would not function on the moon and a rocket engine would require 20 times more fuel to produce the LLRV flight depicted in the videos. One of the most compelling reason to question the Apollo 11 mission is the photographic images of the Apollo 11 lander do not depict a blast zone beneath the exhaust nozzle of the lander caused by the 3,000 lb rocket thrust. The argument that the 3,000 lb thrust is not significant enough to produce a blast zone beneath the lander is used to justify the non-existence of the blast zone. Using an analogy, a Lear jet engine is rated with a 3,500 lb thrust. The 3,000 lb lander rocket thrust that produces a 2,000o F flame would result in a blast zone beneath the Apollo 11 lunar lander yet the Apollo 11 photograph (fig 37) shows boot prints just below the lander's exhaust nozzle.
In the Apollo 11 photographs, the shadows of the lunar objects are pointing in different directions. The large distance from the Sun to the moon results in parallel shadows of all lunar objects on a level surface yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs depict large variations of the angles of the shadows formed by objects on a level lunar surface. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the multiple directions of the lunar shadows but in an Apollo 11 photograph (fig 38), a rock and the lander, on a near level surface, are separated by the distance of 100 meters and are forming shadows that produce an angle of 45 degrees which negates the contour surface argument. In another argument, the Sun's intensity reflected by the earth is used to represent a second light source that forms the multiple directional lunar shadows but the light intensities of the Sun and the Earth would form two separate shadows yet each lunar object forms a single shadow. The varying angles of the lunar shadows prove the Apollo 11 photographs were fabricated in a large movie studio with a light source attached to the ceiling. Also, the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 39a,b) depict part of the cross hairs in the back of a lunar object but the cross hairs are etched into a glass plate within the camera which would result in the cross hairs to always be in front of all the lunar objects yet numerous Apollo 11 photographs show part of the cross hairs behind the lunar object. Furthermore, no photographs were taken that included the stars of the stellar universe and an Apollo 11 astronaut while on the surface of the moon since if the stars appeared in any of the photographs, every photograph would require the stars' positions to align with a specific time which would be extremely difficult to emulate. In an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon (video 3). The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely nervous when asked the question regarding why no stars appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. NASA justifies the absence of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs but the background of the celestial universe in the Apollo 11 photographs is pitch black which would result in a few of the higher intensity stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs. If the reflected Sun light prevents the stars to appear in the Apollo 11 photographs, the background stellar universe of the Apollo 11 photographs would appear gray yet the Apollo 11 photograph's background celestial universe is pitch black, and, a lens hood would block the reflected lunar light from entering the camera lens which would allow the stars to appear the the Apollo 11 photographs. In the photographs taken at the international space station, during the day, stars appear in the ISS photographs yet none of the photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission contain any stars.
The lunar surface is said to reach the temperature of 220o Fahrenheit which would result in the Apollo astronauts to experience heat stroke after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. A water capillary coolant system is said to cool the outer surface of the astronauts to prevent the astronauts from perishing from the intense heat that would accumulate after 2.5 hours on the lunar surface. The argument that the space suit reflects the Sun's intensity is used to justify the Apollo 11 space suit water coolant system is insignificant since the reflected solar light would result in the space suit to absorb an enormous amount solar light energy. It would require an air conditioner unit and batteries to cool the interior of the Apollo 11 space suit to allow the astronauts to survive on the lunar surface for 2.5 hours. Example, if a person walked on the surface of Death Valley (120o F) in an enclosed suit for 2.5 hr it would require an air conditioning unit and batteries to maintain a temperature to sustain the person at a comfortable temperature. Furthermore, the original video of Armstrong stepping on the surface of the moon has been lost and the only record of the event is a distorted video taken indirectly by a television camera videoing Armstrong walking on the lunar surface that was projected from a NASA monitor (video 5). There is a problem regarding the position of the video camera that extents from the side of the lander (fig 40) and Armstrong making his first step onto the moon's surface since Armstrong takes three steps away from the lander towards the video camera after stepping on the lunar surface yet the video camera is attached to the side of the lander and is approximately two meter from the ladder and pointing parallel to the side of the lander. Furthermore, in a video, an Apollo astronaut is shown placing a flag on the surface of the moon but in the video, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind (video 6) yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of a flag with the intensity depicted in the Apollo 11 video. It is argued that the momentum of the flag created by the astronaut placing the flag pole onto the moon's surface causes the flag to wave but the intensity of the flag waving in the horizontal direction suggests that the Apollo 11 mission flag waving was created by a cooling fan in a movie studio. Furthermore, NASA justifies the lunar mission using moon rocks but the moon rocks could be meteors that landed on the surface of the earth and passed off as moon rocks.
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The power of the radio signal produce by the Apollo 11 lander is estimated at 50 Watts. A radio signal's intensity is dependent on the inverse of the second order of the distance I = U2 = {[A cos(kr)]/r]}2 where A represents the power of the radio signal. After a radio signal propagates the distance of 238,000 miles (3.8 x 108 m) to the earth, a 50 W radio signal's intensity would diminish to I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (3.8 x 108 m)2 = 8.65 x 10-15 W2/m2. The Parkes radio dish antenna located in Sydney Australia was used to communicate with the Apollo 11 mission. The sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is extrapolated using the radio signal intensity formed by a 300 km height communication satellite that emits a 20 W radio signal and produces an radio signal intensity at the surface of the earth of I = A2 [cos2(kr)]/r2 = (20 W)2 (.5) / (3 x 105m)2 = 2.22 x 10-9 W2/m2; adding two orders of magnitude to the satellite radio signal's intensity that forms at the surface of the earth, the sensitivity of the Parkes radio antenna is estimated at 10-11 W2/m2. There is a four order of magnitude difference between the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes radio telescope and the 10-15 W2 /m2 s-band radio signal that originates from the Apollo 11 mission. Also, a radio signal cannot penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt that surrounds the earth. It is questionable how NASA communicated with the Apollo missions, Voyagers, and Mars probes using radio waves. It is argue that a satellite that is orbiting the earth at a height of 30,000 km above the earth that is passed the Van Allen belt justifies the functionality of the Apollo 11 communication system but the described satellite height is 20 % of the distance to the moon which is a doubtful magnitude for the height for orbiting communication satellite. NASA uses the Voyager to justify the communication system of the Apollo 11 mission but NASA states that the Voyager is sending back a 50 W radio signal from a distance of over 1 billion miles (1.61 x 1012m) from the earth which would produce a radio signal of I = (50 W)2 (0.5) / (1.61 x 1012 m)2 = 5 x 10-22 W2/m2 at the earth that is 11 orders of magnitude less than the extrapolated sensitivity of the Parkes (10-11 W2/m2). NASA engineers have not yet establish the maximum range of a radio signal.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/apollo-11-hoax-photos--8-moon-landing-myths-busted/
Michael Moroney
2019-05-14 05:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.

Duh-h-h-h!
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 06:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.
Duh-h-h-h!
Hardly. The reflection shows very clearly that he was looking away from the helmet, his body being in the distance and some ninety degrees to the helmet. He definitely was not taking the photograph. That much I could see way back in 1969!
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 07:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.
Duh-h-h-h!
Hardly. The reflection shows very clearly that he was looking away from the helmet, his body being in the distance and some ninety degrees to the helmet. He definitely was not taking the photograph. That much I could see way back in 1969!
http://100photos.time.com/photos/neil-armstrong-nasa-man-on-moon

We see Aldrin with his back to Armstrong, going by the shadow and the look.
So who took this photograph?
Was it a selfie? How did Armstrong manage it if it was a selfie?
His hands are free, and his camera is on his chest.
How did he manage to film himself. Was it a voice activated remote? Oops, sound does not travel in vacuum. Was there some camera on a stand with a wire? No, his hands are free, as I wrote.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Michael Moroney
2019-05-14 08:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.
Duh-h-h-h!
Hardly. The reflection shows very clearly that he was looking away from the
helmet, his body being in the distance and some ninety degrees to the helmet. He
definitely was not taking the photograph. That much I could see way back in 1969!
http://100photos.time.com/photos/neil-armstrong-nasa-man-on-moon
We see Aldrin with his back to Armstrong, going by the shadow and the look.
Yeah when I searched to get a better look, a whole bunch of kooksites turned up with
this photo and another reflection photo, with the kooks running the show telliing us
what we are supposed to be seeing (just like you are, "Aldrin with his back to
Armstrong" and "in the distance". Btw you got it wrong, Aldrin is the main
attraction with Armstrong's reflection in the visor.)

As to "in the distance", don't forget the visor isn't flat, it's rather spherical
so the reflection will be smaller than a flat mirror (https://tinyurl.com/y2gorwoc)
Post by Arindam Banerjee
So who took this photograph?
Was it a selfie? How did Armstrong manage it if it was a selfie?
His hands are free, and his camera is on his chest.
How did he manage to film himself. Was it a voice activated remote? Oops, sound
does not travel in vacuum. Was there some camera on a stand with a wire? No, his
hands are free, as I wrote.
Sorry, Armstrong took the picture (of Aldrin), just as the article stated.
In a way, Armstrong did take a selfie since he caught his reflection in the
photo.

I suppose it would be theoretically possible for a camera on an arm from the lem
to take the picture (like filming Armstrong descending the ladder, some of the
dimmmer kooks ask "who shot _that_ video?") but that isn't what happened.
Could have been done by timer or activated from Earth.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 10:07:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.
Duh-h-h-h!
Hardly. The reflection shows very clearly that he was looking away from the
helmet, his body being in the distance and some ninety degrees to the helmet. He
definitely was not taking the photograph. That much I could see way back in 1969!
http://100photos.time.com/photos/neil-armstrong-nasa-man-on-moon
We see Aldrin with his back to Armstrong, going by the shadow and the look.
Yeah when I searched to get a better look, a whole bunch of kooksites turned up with
this photo and another reflection photo, with the kooks running the show telliing us
what we are supposed to be seeing (just like you are, "Aldrin with his back to
Armstrong" and "in the distance". Btw you got it wrong, Aldrin is the main
attraction with Armstrong's reflection in the visor.)
Well yes, I am not claiming I am the first one to point this out, and ask how the photo was taken. Anyone can and should ask this question. One cannot know who the chap is, Armstrong or Aldrin unless one believes what is told in the article. It does not really matter, for no one says there was a third person around. The article says there was only one Hasselblad, with Armstrong taking the pictures. But here Armstrong is away from Aldrin, certainly not taking his photograph. That much is clear to anyone.
Post by Michael Moroney
As to "in the distance", don't forget the visor isn't flat, it's rather spherical
so the reflection will be smaller than a flat mirror (https://tinyurl.com/y2gorwoc)
Fair enough, but going by shadows (Aldrin's large shadow nearly reaches Armstrong) Armstrong is about 2-3 meters away.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
So who took this photograph?
Was it a selfie? How did Armstrong manage it if it was a selfie?
His hands are free, and his camera is on his chest.
How did he manage to film himself. Was it a voice activated remote? Oops, sound
does not travel in vacuum. Was there some camera on a stand with a wire? No, his
hands are free, as I wrote.
Sorry, Armstrong took the picture (of Aldrin), just as the article stated.
How is that possible? If he took it he should be facing Aldrin with a camera. He is turned away from Aldrin, and no camera to be seen. If he was facing Aldrin we would have seen his visor as well.
Post by Michael Moroney
In a way, Armstrong did take a selfie since he caught his reflection in the
photo.
And that is manna for conspiracy theorists for jolly well Armstrong could not have taken the photograph as proved by his reflected image on the visor. To repeat, that image of Armstrong does not show him taking the photograph.

It does show a shadow, which has to be that of Aldrin (who else?)

But there is a strange thing happening, in the next photo shown in that site.

Here we find Aldrin's shadow is tilting to his RIGHT while in the earlier photo it was tilting to his LEFT as the visor clearly shows.

How could that happen? The Sun surely had not changed places that fast?

One plausible answer is, that the photo of Aldrin was taken by a third guy on the studio set whose shadow we are seeing on Aldrin's visor.

I am sure that other minds have considered the shadowy sides of things. How NASA can explain that in two photos the shadow of the same person in the same spot on the Moon with the Sun behind him, can go from left to right, is something the world would like to know.
Post by Michael Moroney
I suppose it would be theoretically possible for a camera on an arm from the lem
to take the picture (like filming Armstrong descending the ladder, some of the
dimmmer kooks ask "who shot _that_ video?") but that isn't what happened.
Could have been done by timer or activated from Earth.
Where was the camera, if done by timer? Taking it automatically from the LM is dicey with the technology of the time. Activated from Earth boggles the mind even more. What terrific co-ordination, then!

The only way it could be done was to take off the camera, put it in on a fixed spot, set the timing, then wander off so that when the photo was taken he was in a different spot without facing Aldrin... doing all that in a spacesuit is as inconvenient as it is unnecessary.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-14 10:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Arindam Banerjee
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Arindam Banerjee
I would like to know who took the famous photo of the astronaut showing the
reflection of the other astronaut and the lunar module on the visor of his
helmet.
The astronaut whose reflection you see in the helmet.
Duh-h-h-h!
Hardly. The reflection shows very clearly that he was looking away from the
helmet, his body being in the distance and some ninety degrees to the helmet. He
definitely was not taking the photograph. That much I could see way back in 1969!
http://100photos.time.com/photos/neil-armstrong-nasa-man-on-moon
We see Aldrin with his back to Armstrong, going by the shadow and the look.
Yeah when I searched to get a better look, a whole bunch of kooksites turned up with
this photo and another reflection photo, with the kooks running the show telliing us
what we are supposed to be seeing (just like you are, "Aldrin with his back to
Armstrong" and "in the distance". Btw you got it wrong, Aldrin is the main
attraction with Armstrong's reflection in the visor.)
As to "in the distance", don't forget the visor isn't flat, it's rather spherical
so the reflection will be smaller than a flat mirror (https://tinyurl.com/y2gorwoc)
Post by Arindam Banerjee
So who took this photograph?
Was it a selfie? How did Armstrong manage it if it was a selfie?
His hands are free, and his camera is on his chest.
How did he manage to film himself. Was it a voice activated remote? Oops, sound
does not travel in vacuum. Was there some camera on a stand with a wire? No, his
hands are free, as I wrote.
Sorry, Armstrong took the picture (of Aldrin), just as the article stated.
In a way, Armstrong did take a selfie since he caught his reflection in the
photo.
I suppose it would be theoretically possible for a camera on an arm from the lem
to take the picture (like filming Armstrong descending the ladder, some of the
dimmmer kooks ask "who shot _that_ video?") but that isn't what happened.
Could have been done by timer or activated from Earth.
Seems to me that the only way to get that photo was automatically from a camera on the Lunar Module. From what I dimly remember NASA claimed to have done just that. No way Armstrong could have taken that photo, timer or no timer.
Michael Moroney
2019-05-15 14:26:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arindam Banerjee
No way Armstrong could have taken that photo, timer or no timer.
Why not? He's clearly in the right spot and blowing up the photo, while still
blurry, he is facing the right direction. Don't forget the spherical visor makes
reflections off it much smaller.
Arindam Banerjee
2019-05-15 22:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Armstrong had to be some photographer to take that selfie. With his back half turned, no camera in sight pointing at Aldrin, in a huge clumsy suit, and on the Moon to boot.
Dan Stevens
2019-05-14 03:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1) Google-poster

2) gmail address

3) Imbecile.
sergIo
2019-05-14 04:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Stevens
1) Google-poster
2) gmail address
3) Imbecile.
The IP address 137.150.100.23 was found in Arcata, California, United
States. It is allocated to Humboldt State University. Additional IP
location information, as well as network tools are available below.
IP address: 137.150.100.23
hostname: 137.150.100.23
ISP: Humboldt State University
City: Arcata
Region: California
Country: United States (US) flag
Postal code: 95521
Area code: 707
Metro code: 802
latitude: 40.8536
longitude: -124.0502


https://www.google.com/maps/place/Arcata,+CA/@40.8453997,-124.1232636,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x54d1570e67b9e801:0x7d8ad78fa1858786!8m2!3d40.8665166!4d-124.0828396

Arcata, originally Union Town or Union, is a city adjacent to the Arcata
Bay (northern) portion of Humboldt Bay in Humboldt County, California,
United States. At the 2010 census, Arcata's population was 17,231.
Arcata, located 280 miles (450 km) north of San Francisco (via Highway
101), is home to Humboldt State University. Arcata is also the location
of the Arcata Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Land Management,
which is responsible for the administration of natural resources, lands
and mineral programs, including the Headwaters Forest, on approximately
200,000 acres of public land in Northwestern California.

Recent history

In August 1989, the voters of Arcata passed the Nuclear Weapons Free
Zone Act, prohibiting work on nuclear weapons, and the storage or
transportation of nuclear weapons within the City Limits. The ordinance
also minimized the City's contracts for and purchases of the products
and services of nuclear weapons contractors. On March 17, 2010, the
Arcata city council voted for final passage of a Unlawful Panhandling
ordinance (Ordinance No. 1399). Among other restrictions, it forbids
panhandling within 20 feet (6.1 m) of any business.[44]

Arcata has the highest density of wood eating termites in the USA
c***@gmail.com
2019-05-15 19:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink





a***@humboldt.edu
2019-05-15 22:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Was the velocity constant? Wouldn't the gravity of the Earth and Moon
have been relevant.

______________________________________________


No. Why do you think object are weightless in the ISS.
a***@humboldt.edu
2019-05-15 22:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Anyway, did the service module stop when it got to the Moon? I was under
the vague impression that it went into orbit, with the only fuel
required being that to change its path from an trajectory that would
return to Earth to one that would stay in orbit around the moon.

___________________________________________________________


This Apollo 11 mission is based on a half circle path which is not physically possible that is the reason my calculation look odd to you.
c***@gmail.com
2019-05-17 18:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
dfdrf

Loading...