Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #566593

Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Am 28.03.2016 21:52, schrieb Ewan:

>>>>>> Men never went to the moon and probably never will.
>>>>>> - Big Willy
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they did! Faked TV moon landing doesn't mean nobody ever
>>>>> went there! Trust me.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of media-fakery is to create a state of uneasiness called
>>>> 'cognitive dissonance' in the general public.
>>>>
>>>> People know subconciously, they are lied at, but are not able to
>>>> accept this. This creates the desired stress in the mind, which is
>>>> utilised for mass-manipulation.
>>>>
>>>> So people are told stuff, what their subconcious mind regards as fake,
>>>> but their concious mind as truth. This state demands 'relief', and let
>>>> make people follow any idiot, who promises to 'free' them.
>>>>
>>>> (It also promotes the use of drugs, btw.)
>>>>
>>>> So the pictures are more blurry than necessary, since people SHALL see
>>>> the fraud. That is an essential part of the plan and a necessity for
>>>> mass-manipulation.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> this is an iconic photo.
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>>>
>>> What you actually see is a large disproportion between head (helmet)
>>> and legs.
>>>
>>> Human bodies have a certain canon of relations, which e.g. Leonardo da
>>> Vinci depicted here:
>>>
>>> http://www.art-leonardo-da-vinci.de/images/leonardo-da-vinci-
> vitruvianische-mensch.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Now too large head and to short legs give the impression of 'cuteness':
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
>>>
>>> Which is something, the subconscious mind recognises, but what does not
>>> fit to scientific experiments on the Moon.
>>>
>>> So we have a carefully designed image, that clearly attempts to bring
>>> the viewer into the confused state called 'cognitive dissonance'.
>>>
>>>
>> This picture is REALLY strange:
>>
>> https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
> dn17488-1_500.jpg
>>
>> To understand the situation one should notice, that these dolls in the
>> background are actually representations of the guys standing in front of
>> the lander.
>>
>> Now the problem:
>> the lander is 'real', as are the astronauts. But the dolls are smaller
>> than the real astronauts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a picture from a training for Apollo 11 on Earth:
>>
>> http://c7.alamy.com/comp/F4T3D3/training-astronaut-neil-armstrong-in-the-
> apollo-11-houston-tx-usa-F4T3D3.jpg
>>
>> Here a picture of Buzz Aldrin:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/
> Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg/600px-Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
>>
>> Now the head is larger and the legs are shorter in the second picture.
>> This means, the picture was made from slightly above - but only the
>> picture of the astronaut, not the ground.
>>
>> The ground was photographed from a very low position, since the pads of
>> the lander are relatively large (hence the camera was close to them).
>> TH
>
> Interesting reading. To me is not so much about that, but about things
> which should be there, they aren't. And things that are there and it
> shouldn't. I'm not talking about shadows, which could be explained
> variously, but physics and material objects discrepancies. Strange that
> nobody explain anything. Maybe they did land on the Moon, delayed or
> somehow differently, but they are saying the opposite. That it is not
> possible. What should people think then. Good post, Thomas.

A common human produces about 50 to 100 Watt of heat.

Since the moon has no atmosphere, the excess heat needs to be 
distributed to the environment by other means.

But I cannot identify any system sufficient to distribute heat to the 
vacuum in the suits or backpacks of the astronauts.


Another problem is, that these suits should look more bulgy, since 
humans need a certain pressure to survive.


Aldrin and Armstrong were medium sized men, a little more than 1,80 m 
(my guess).

If we add something for VERY well insulating soles and the huge helmet, 
the entire astronaut would have a hight of about 2 m.

The puppets on the lander in the Washington flight museum are only about 
1,70 m high, hence too small.

But larger astronauts would not fit through the lander's door.


The lander is actually a two staged rocket.

One stage is designed to decelerate the craft from orbit speed, to allow 
safe landing (with v_sideways=0 and v_vertical=0).

The other stage has to do the opposite, to return the astronauts to the 
orbiter.

I have figured out, the craft had only sufficient fuel for landing (with 
the rocket equation).


The return maneuver was actually a rendezvous in Moon orbit, which 
requires tremendous precision for navigation in space and time. The 
lander had not enough means to measure its own position and that of the 
orbiter.

...


TH

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:11 -0700
  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 07:30 +0100
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 05:10 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:25 +0100
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Bojana Kudryavtseva <bojkud@rtyn56h67i.org> - 2016-03-26 10:33 +0000
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:36 -0400
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-27 05:04 +0200
              Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 05:12 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-28 21:37 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 19:52 +0000
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-03-30 06:38 +0200
                Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 20:02 +0200
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:04 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 17:13 +0100
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:36 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:54 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:39 +0100
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:10 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 14:02 -0700
            Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 18:49 -0500
  Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-25 18:20 +0000
    Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 13:04 -0700
      Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-26 18:05 +0000
        Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 11:19 -0700
          Re: Why Water Researchers Are Confused jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-27 05:09 +0000

csiph-web