|
Post by angeress on Jun 14, 2010 16:30:46 GMT -4
This man actually told all the world about the Moon story, and he has stated for a fact that it was Area 51, not the Moon surface that was filmed really.
|
|
|
Post by angeress on Jun 14, 2010 16:31:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 14, 2010 16:32:58 GMT -4
Yes, the regulars on this forum are quite familiar with Bill Kaysing, thank you. Repeating a question from the Moon Matrix thread you started, which of Bill Kaysing's claims do you consider to be "truth talk"?
|
|
|
Post by angeress on Jun 14, 2010 16:41:44 GMT -4
What I would class as truth talk is the fact that why was the Moon Vechicle less on fuel on the journey back and also Area 51 was the part of the world which was dolled up as the Moon for the unsuspected masses.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 14, 2010 16:44:38 GMT -4
Where is the proof that anything goes on at Area 51 besides the development and testing of military aircraft? Besides just Kaysing's word, that is?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 14, 2010 16:51:08 GMT -4
he has stated for a fact that it was Area 51, not the Moon surface that was filmed really. And he was wrong. So? Area 51 is an easy target for conspiracy theorists, because they can backtrack when asked for evidence and claim they can't get it because Area 51 is a secret base. Kaysing's claims are bunk, and have been shown to be so time and time again.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 14, 2010 16:59:44 GMT -4
why was the Moon Vechicle less on fuel on the journey back Are you really asking that question? Why do you think it would need anything like as much fuel on the way back as it did on the way out? Look, on the way out they had to accelerate a fully fuelled Apollo CSM and LM plus three astronauts and two weeks' worth of consumables against Earth's gravity to a speed of 25,000 mph. On the way back the LM had to lift only the ascent stage plus two men, without the superfluous items which they had thrown out onto the surface, against lunar gravity to about 3,500mph to get into orbit. The CSM then had to accelerate itself and three men, without the lunar module to 5,000mph in order to reach lunar escape velocity. So, why are you surprised that accelerating a lighter spacecraft to a lower speed against lower gravity requires less fuel? Absolute rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by angeress on Jun 14, 2010 17:05:34 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing has stated many things about the subject and his claims are taken very, very seriously infact. I used to wind up sometimes with the Kaysing story, but why is NASA very worried about Kaysing's claims? Why?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 14, 2010 17:09:16 GMT -4
Why do you think NASA is "very worried" about Kaysing's claims? As far as I know, they mostly ignore his claims.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 14, 2010 17:15:17 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing has stated many things about the subject and his claims are taken very, very seriously infact. By whom, precisely? Who says they are worried? They ignore him. How about responding to the explanation you were given to one of your questions?
|
|
|
Post by angeress on Jun 14, 2010 17:15:24 GMT -4
No they do not because if NASA ignored his claims then he would not be a huge authority on The Moon and Fox Tv would of never of allowed him to have his own TV show either. I am actually in two minds about this, but what gets me is that Neil Armstrong had a serious accident with some machine (it was supposed to be Moon friendly) and how the hell could of that work on the Moon when that nearly killed him?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 14, 2010 17:19:06 GMT -4
No they do not because if NASA ignored his claims then he would not be a huge authority on The Moon and Fox Tv would of never of allowed him to have his own TV show either. How do you get there? Kaysing is by no means a 'huge authority' on the Moon, and Fox TV can make whatever they like, whatever NASA says or thinks. Just as a pointer, it is considered rude on this forum to bring new questions to the discussion without dealing with the ones already on the table. You asked about the fuel on the Lm, and I took the time to answer. Please do me the courtesy of at least acknowledging that before moving on. As to Armstrong's accident, the crash involved the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. Thsi was solely for pilot training. it was NOT a LM test article, nor did it resemble the LM in any way. It also crashed because it broke. It's like having the steering wheel come off in your hand while doing 90mph. Armstrong made many successful flights in it, as did many of the other astronauts. Its failure in this one case has no bearing on the performance of the lunar module whatsoever. It was never supposed to work on the Moon in the first place, so the question is moot. Besides, do you question passenger flights when there is a record of 747s falling out of the sky? How the hell can that work when it's killed so many?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 14, 2010 17:24:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 14, 2010 17:30:50 GMT -4
No they do not because if NASA ignored his claims then he would not be a huge authority on The Moon He was pretty much the exact opposite of being an "authority on the Moon". Yeah, because FOX would never give air time to dishonest people. How so? You seem pretty "one minded" to me. The vehicle that Neil Armstrong had the accident in was not "Moon friendly" at all. It was only designed to work on Earth as a rough simulation of the Lunar Module. If someone dies in a car crash does that mean the automobile is a hoax? If a plane crashes does that mean aviation is not possible?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jun 14, 2010 19:05:36 GMT -4
why was the Moon Vechicle less on fuel on the journey back For the same reason that the upper stages of launch vehicles are smaller and lighter than the lower stages -- they don't have to lift as much weight. The first stage has to lift the entire launch weight of the rocket. The second stage has to lift its own weight and that of the stages above, but not the weight of the first stage. And so on. Apollo was a multi-staged vehicle. It took five other rocket stages to get the fully-fueled LM ascent stage to the surface of the moon: the three stages of the Saturn V, which sent both Apollo spacecraft toward the moon; the Service Propulsion System engine of the CSM, which decelerated both LM stages and the CSM into lunar orbit; and the descent stage of the lunar module, which took itself and the ascent stage to a soft landing on the moon. The descent stage was left behind on the moon, so the ascent stage only had to lift itself, the astronauts and their cargo into lunar orbit where it joined up with the CSM. Its job was then done. It didn't need any more fuel. After the crew returned to the CSM, they fired the Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine a second time to break out of lunar orbit and return to earth. This was a much smaller rocket than the Saturn S-IVB that took them out of earth orbit toward the moon for several reasons. First, the moon is a much lighter body than the earth. It doesn't require nearly as much of a "push" to escape from a low lunar orbit than it does to escape from a low earth orbit. Furthermore the SPS only had to propel the weight of the CSM, which by then was only partly fueled, while the Saturn S-IVB had to propel the fully fueled CSM, both fully fueled LM stages and itself out of earth orbit toward the moon.
|
|