Mainstream Media is a Hoax

[Mike Christ]

First sign of an idiot: Uses the ad hominem argument (especially of the "you're very stupid (but I'm not)" variety)

Second sign of an idiot: When not using the ad hominem argument: propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

This subforum has degenerated into a shit-sling.  What's a rational argument anymore?  Forget those--lets just say the exact same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until someone agrees.

[1714120268]

1714120268

[1714120268]

1714120268

[1714120268]

1714120268

[1714120268]

1714120268

[Lethn]

Wait a minute.... if someone uses ad hominem but also provides scientific, mathematical and historical evidence what does that make them?

[Mike Christ]

Wait a minute.... if someone uses ad hominem but also provides scientific, mathematical and historical evidence what does that make them?

If one needs ad hominem to make a point, they're an idiot; if one includes it anyway, they're a dickhead   But nobody really wants to listen to either.

[cryptoanarchist]

First sign of an idiot: Uses the ad hominem argument (especially of the "you're very stupid (but I'm not)" variety)

Second sign of an idiot: When not using the ad hominem argument: propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.

This subforum has degenerated into a shit-sling.  What's a rational argument anymore?  Forget those--lets just say the exact same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until someone agrees.

Wow...so you used an ad hominem to describe people who use ad hominems - classic!

As far as scientific proof these fake shootings actually happened - there isn't any, just fake witness accounts. As far as rational arguments that they've been staged - there are mountains of proof.

Sandy Hook is possibly the most obvious fake event (although the moon landing is pretty obvious too). I'd like to hear the "TV-never-lies" people explain some of the stuff brought up here: http://nodisinfo.com/Home/sandy-hook-what-we-know-for-sure/ with something beyond the usual "tin foil hat" comments. But I won't, because they can't/

[Mike Christ]

Wow...so you used an ad hominem to describe people who use ad hominems - classic! You might want to reconsider calling yourself an idiot.

Remember: ad hominem is a direct attack at a person as an argument.  In this case, I am making a definition; though one may find this, upon realizing themselves fitting into this definition, as insulting, someone's gotta be "it"--all I'm doing is making clear the difference between the makeup of an idiot and the non-idiot.  There's no way to say it without questioning someone's intelligence, since that's exactly what's happening.  Though I could use "highly irrational" instead, I also don't call cripples "differently abled".

[cryptoanarchist]

Wow...so you used an ad hominem to describe people who use ad hominems - classic! You might want to reconsider calling yourself an idiot.

Remember: ad hominem is a direct attack at a person as an argument. 

Exactly.

[Mike Christ]

Exactly.

I'm glad we agree.  Once you point out the spot where I used ad hominem against a person to argue for a point or against another point, I'll be happy to concede that your last response was entirely correct.

[Anon136]

Here are the relevant characteristics.  A 3500 lbf thrust rocket motor you can pick up with one hand.  That was used to place the ascent module in low lunar orbit, then the orbiting unit made the return to Earth.  As you can see, fuel for the ascent stage was about half the weight of the unit.

Mass including fuel: 10,300 lb (4,700 kg)
APS thrust: 3,500 lbf (16,000 N)
APS propellants: Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer
APS specific impulse: 311 s (3,050 N·s/kg)
APS delta-V: 7,280 ft/s (2,220 m/s)
Thrust-to-weight ratio at liftoff: 2.124 (in lunar gravity)

These methods have been well understood for over a century.
total change in velocity = specific impulse * ln(takeoff mass/final empty mass)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Let me repeat something you may have missed:  Modern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJo

Previously I noted Ayn Rand's comments immediately after the Apollo 11 launch.

Ayn Rand, from the launchpad of Apollo 11, wrote this about the 'doubters'.  She talks about the doubters, and the skeptics...You see, they were definitely around then, just as now.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_apollo11

Oh, final thing, actual operational spacecraft don't tend to look pretty or elegant.  And yes, I have worked in this field and made a small contribution.

Sounds like you were unable to wake up those frontal lobes. You think that you can travel over 200K miles with less than 10,000 lbs of fuel? You must have watched a lot of cartoons because you have quite the imagination. What kind of magic fuel was that?

Oh yeah, and appealing to Ayn Rand is a logical fallacy. She was a great philosopher, but not a rocket scientist.

im skeptical of the moon landing myself (note this is not the same thing as saying "i know we never landed on the moon") but you dont seem to understand the physics of traveling in a zero g vacuum. it doenst require a great deal of fuel to lift off of the moon and from that point you just coast along, there is no friction to slow you down so you only need enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate.

[cryptoanarchist]

im skeptical of the moon landing myself (note this is not the same thing as saying "i know we never landed on the moon") but you dont seem to understand the physics of traveling in a zero g vacuum. it doenst require a great deal of fuel to lift off of the moon and from that point you just coast along, there is no friction to slow you down so you only need enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate.

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

[justusranvier]

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math instead of just guessing.

[NewLiberty]

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math instead of just guessing.

Does this mean that the Saturn V that carried both the lunar lander and itself does not have to be 6 times bigger than the part of the lunar lander that doesn't have to carry any part of the Saturn V even if the gravity difference is 6x?

And does it mean that as the fuel is exhausted that the vehicle loses mass at the rate of the fuel exhaustion and so takes less to move it over time?

[cryptoanarchist]

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math instead of just guessing.

Does this mean that the Saturn V that carried both the lunar lander and itself does not have to be 6 times bigger than the part of the lunar lander that doesn't have to carry any part of the Saturn V even if the gravity difference is 6x?

And does it mean that as the fuel is exhausted that the vehicle loses mass at the rate of the fuel exhaustion and so takes less to move it over time?

I don't really need math to spot such an obvious fraud. It's pretty simple: It took a Saturn rocket to take off from earth, but only something the size of a Lincoln Navigator to take off from the moon. Does that really require anything more than common sense to see that that's bullshit?

And that's just one thing. We could talk about the mountains of problems with the footage and photos, the fact that NASA conveniently just lost all the flight data, the problem with traveling through the van allen belts, the behavior of the astronauts after the fact, the proven fake moon rocks, and the fact that with 40+ years of advancing technology, no one seems to be able to go there anymore.

If you can look into all those things and still blindly think that America and the TV would never lie to you, then you're just a brainwashed dumbass.

[justusranvier]

I don't really need math to spot such an obvious fraud. It's pretty simple: It took a Saturn rocket to take off from earth, but only something the size of a Lincoln Navigator to take off from the moon. Does that really require anything more than common sense to see that that's bullshit?

What's your deal anyway? Are you here to give crypto anarchists a bad reputation by acting mathematically illiterate?

[Spendulus]

It's pretty easy to figure out to me. The moon's gravity is 1/6th of the earth's. Look at the NASA picture I posted of the fake spacecraft - does that in any way seem like 1/6th of a Saturn rocket? Keep in mind that the bottom portion supposedly stayed on the moon and just the top half takes off. It's about the size of a SUV. Logically, that would mean that the Saturn rockets would have only needed to be the size of about 6 SUVs. That and about 1000 other things don't add up.

Next time you're trying to figure out how big a spacecraft needs to be, try using math instead of just guessing.

I happened by an unexpected chance, to see the full exhibits of Tsiolkovsky at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles.  This part of that Museum is worth visiting if you have a chance.

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

[Spendulus]

.....

im skeptical of the moon landing myself (note this is not the same thing as saying "i know we never landed on the moon") but you dont seem to understand the physics of traveling in a zero g vacuum. it doenst require a great deal of fuel to lift off of the moon and from that point you just coast along, there is no friction to slow you down so you only need enough fuel to accelerate and decelerate.

I don't know if you saw this link, but the work of Kooima is absolutely amazing.  Basically you can download lunar maps to under a half meter resolution and explore the place.  It takes a high end gamer style computer.

Modern radar mapping has shown us these landing sites, and has resolved the equipment left there, the vehicle tracks, and even the footprints of these men in the surface powder. (starts at 2:50 or so)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPJDxEkmjJo

[NewLiberty]

I happened by an unexpected chance, to see the full exhibits of Tsiolkovsky at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles.  This part of that Museum is worth visiting if you have a chance.

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

The entirety of the Museum of Jurassic Technology ought be studied.
http://mjt.org/

[cryptoanarchist]

I don't really need math to spot such an obvious fraud. It's pretty simple: It took a Saturn rocket to take off from earth, but only something the size of a Lincoln Navigator to take off from the moon. Does that really require anything more than common sense to see that that's bullshit?

What's your deal anyway? Are you here to give crypto anarchists a bad reputation by acting mathematically illiterate?

I'm sure I'm better at math than you. I went through three Calc courses. Are you trying to prove you're an idiot by not getting the point that math isn't needed? Are you trying to prove that only shit fills your cranium by not understanding the point that common sense is enough to prove that moon landings never happened?

You're clearly a dumbass. What you're saying is like saying that I'm acting mathematically illiterate for not believing in Santa Claus because I won't debate the velocity characteristics of reindeer in-flight or the aerodynamics of sleighs.

[justusranvier]

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

or gravitational potential energy, or Newton's laws of motion...

[cryptoanarchist]

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

or gravitational potential energy, or Newton's laws of motion...

Yeah...great explanation. I suppose you're gonna say the Easter bunny is real too? "CryptoAnarchist just doesn't understand the candy-giving bunny equation." Do you realize how pathetically stupid you sound?

I guess you believe this too:



Yeah, totally looks real.

[Spendulus]

As for cryptoanarchist, here he shows that he does not understand the rocket equation.  More basic than that, his error is in not understanding the relation between velocity and momentum.

or gravitational potential energy, or Newton's laws of motion...

Yeah...great explanation. I suppose you're gonna say the Easter bunny is real too? "CryptoAnarchist just doesn't understand the candy-giving bunny equation." Do you realize how pathetically stupid you sound?

I guess you believe this too:



Yeah, totally looks real.

I'm not sure why you use words like "believe".  They have no real place in science or engineering.  There is a world of facts.  You are in denial of a lot of those facts.