TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED

Not that I can see.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-ever-happened.512081/page-20#post-1068098385

You sure do overreact. Your emotions don't always seem genuine.

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

 

You know that this has all been discussed before.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-move-so-it-was-obviously-in-a-studio.362999/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-claim-of-air-and-the-apollo-15-flag.438617/

You're talking as if those points had never been addressed. That's very sophist-like behavior.

 

No spammer, you obfuscated and lied. You don't ever "discuss" this because it buries your claim.

Your dishonest response is that a flag square on is LESS likely to move than one angled away. Incredible that you could post that. Clearly you know that is a lie. The square on edge is nearer the source of any air movement.

You have never quantified or cited anything in support of your "atmosphere explanation" and you have ignored completely the results of wind tunnel images.

The Apollo 15 flag doesn't billow at all, proof that an air wake is not the source of movement. Your pitiful response is just denial!

Despite never ending requests, your "trotting" video remains off the table. Mine however, which is EXACTLY the same issue when you rotate the light 90 degrees, results in more denial from you.

And once again the "observant" spammer strikes again. He made a direct quote from the thread. Are you that dumb, you haven't worked out how to click it to follow the source!


I was not expecting this spammer to respond properly to any if this. It takes very little to corner either of these two sad individuals. The spammer simply must know that these points bury his claim. Some things are too clear to obfuscate! Don't forget, we are dealing with somebody who thinks fabric swings around unrestricted in water. As credibility tests go, that's up there with flat earth madness.

Explain with citations how air moves something a few feet in front of it. Explain properly how the wind tunnel doesn't explain exactly how air movement works. Video yourself trotting by a flag.

Jarrah White already did it. His flag billowed, the Apollo 15 flag on the Moon did not. His stopped rapidly and nothing like the gentle oscillation from the one on the Moon. His flag moved only when he was level with it.

On my Video, if you rotate the light 90 degrees it is the same orientation as the flag. Notwithstanding that you claimed to have done this, how exactly did you see any movement and how the hell did you fail to "trot" by it underneath!

 

I asked you a question: "What is all that gold colored stuff on the LM anyway?" - and you replied with a link to this:

Apollo Program: What was the material on the side of descent stage on the lunar module? (It looks like tin foil)

Answered by Robert Frost - Developed a training program on the Apollo program for NASA Constellation staff
Answered May 16, 2013 - That is a thermal blanket. An amazingly complex thermal blanket with up to 25 layers. The outer, and thus visible, layer is kapton tape with a very thin layer of gold leaf applied to it. The various layers were composed of material such as kapton, mylar, aluminum, nickel foil, glass wool, titanium, and gold.

Mr. Frost worked on the NASA Constellation program that took place from 2005 - 2009. He didn't work on the Apollo program like Grumman’s Ross Bracco, one of the original developers of the LEM. Bracco said his team decided to use 12 to 18 layers of Kapton or aluminized Mylar material sandwiched together in a 70°F earth clean room and trap the air with a special sealing tape - No mention of gold, glass wool, nickel foil or titanium here...

BTW - what is that gold colored stuff on the LM again?

 

Now you're just being an *******. The link gave the correct answer.

I had to really think about what the hell point you were making. You make so many stupid comments it's hard to decipher them. Regardless of where Frost worked, he had access to Apollo documentation, the same as trolls and spammers!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...QBecQFghGMAo&usg=AOvVaw0YX2mXCRcokpPE_J3mnSJe

That is a Grumman document. You have already been given it in a previous post. It details where your pathetic claims are wrong.

AGAIN:-

The emissivity is most certainly a factor, because the whole major issue is not how hot the outside gets, but how hot the oxygen in the cabin gets. Or are you so confused about your own stupid argument that you have forgotten.

The emissivity that needs factoring in is encapsulated in the point number1 in the list of points you keep running away from!

1. . Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and othervehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

The point I was making is that you can't compare 1960's technology with 2009. Mr. Frost got it wrong because he wasn't there in the 1960's working on the LM-5. Just common sense.

I don't understand why you don't like to answer simple questions. I merely asked you if you know what the gold colored stuff on the LM is. why can't you answer that? You seem to know everything there is to know about this...

 

Troll. I Just cannot fathom how you can be so dumb? He references documentation from Grumman written in the 60s. He is not comparing anything. That's your ridiculous observation. I even gave you the Grumman document.

No. Stupidity

Unbelievable coming from you who has avoided numerous ones for several pages. Do you get your kicks from being a jerk? What stops you from finding out for yourself!

You have been given the answer twice.


AGAIN:-

The emissivity is most certainly a factor, because the whole major issue is not how hot the outside gets, but how hot the oxygen in the cabin gets. Or are you so confused about your own stupid argument that you have forgotten.

The emissivity that needs factoring in is encapsulated in the point number1 in the list of points you keep running away from!

1. . Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and othervehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

He should have read it then.

NOT when you are calculating the equilibrium temperature for an object in space in direct sunlight.

Here is a question I asked you quite awhile back - would you like to answer it now?

 

He did troll. If you say he is wrong a) so what b) refer to Grumman document and show where.

Which is nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! The whole stupid argument was that the heat from the outside would cause the internal temperature to get to 250F. Nowhere have I referred to the emissivity in any other context than how it passes heat to the next internal layer and onwards.

These would be the layers that you cowardly ignore.

AGAIN:-

The emissivity is most certainly a factor, because the whole major issue is not how hot the outside gets, but how hot the oxygen in the cabin gets. Or are you so confused about your own stupid argument that you have forgotten.

The emissivity that needs factoring in is encapsulated in the point number1 in the list of points you keep running away from!

1. . Tell us all how a supposedly 250F crumpled layer of Mylar or Kapton, emitting 0.05 of its heat, manages to bring up the layer next to it, to a similar temperature. Then add the required number of more layers as per the specification.Update Explain how 4 single layers in, plus 1 multi layer outside of it, it even gets to that temperature.
2.The LM had cooling and it did not fail, why is your straw man even relevant?
3. Point me to Al Bean's thermal engineering training in a 1955 degree.
4. How long exactly are you claiming it will be before the oxygen interior reaches maximum temperature? Provide figures,
5. How do unmanned satellites and othervehicles keep cool in space for years?

Cornered.

 

Why don't you want to answer this question?

 

MEH!

 

I don't think that. Please link to where I said something to cause you to believe that I think that.

 

More evidence that you have some sort of delusion. Quite persistently you claim that during the Chinese spacewalk the clip where they swing a flag around is evidence it is in water. The flag is open and shows no restriction at all. It is the most compelling and irrefutable evidence that they cannot possibly be in water.

EPIC FAIL: you use it as a credibility test. During this whole clip both astronauts move exactly as they do before and after. Fabric that is clearly not supported around it's perimeter, spins around with no billowing at all. In water it would cause the fabric to fold in on itself. Your persistence on this shows what kind of a deceitful person you are. There is simply no way that fabric can do that in water, at any speed.

 

Here's the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...obviously-in-a-studio.362999/#post-1064028979

NASA's official position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real so that pretty much destroys NASA's credibility.

That movement is impossible at the speed shown. My argument is that the movement is possible at a much slower speed at which it was filmed. The footage was then sped up to make it look like it was in a vacuum.

(30 second mark)

That movement could only be caused by its being in a gaseous or liquid medium. In a vacuum there wouldn't be any force that would make it move that way. You just destroyed your credibility (again).


(edit ten minutes later)
-----------------------------------------------------

The Chinese spacewalk makes a good objectivity test. Look at these comments by some famous pro-Apollo people*.
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showth...racy/page2&s=a3697f50556392c3d7c31b91497d821e

*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

 

You are quite wrong.

There is no evidence on that thread or any thread of the chinese space walk being faked.

Or for that matter of the lunar landings being faked.

Yes any small piece of debris which broke loose in space would behave exactly as seen. It is not evidence of a hoax much like all of your claims which you KNOW have been crushed shredded debunked and proven to be massively foolish.

Rest assured no matter how much you whine the WORLD KNOWS they were not hoaxes and you are simply wrong.

 

Let's hear you address the points I posted above.

 

I did

You are proven wrong

 

Hey Betamax...

Do you agree that he proved me wrong on those points?

 

I proved you wrong on those points. I think you have psychological issues.

You just repeat the same bullcrap yet again and ignore previous responses. You are just a sad old fool who has an obsession and appalling ignorance. Nothing could reach through your madness.

I just told you quote specifically what happens to fabric in water, even at slow speeds. It billows and folds in on itself. Then you come out with more of your moronic repetition. Get a life.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html?m=1

 

This is from your link.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html?m=1
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------
Item 7 - The flag moves like it does in water!







This is complete nonsense. A flat fabric will not move that way in a viscous medium. The drag co-efficient of water would simply not allow it to rotate unrestricted. The fabric would simply wrap around the small pole. The references to there being no noticeable movement of the astronauts hand, ignore any movement made by simply moving the finger and thumb. He indicates that the flag is moved by water movement which is simply bunkum, water doesn't rotate a flag like that, it is simply impossible. The movement was supposedly down to the mysterious wave blowers!
----------------------------------------------

At the thirty second mark the guy move the flag from right to left.


You seem to be trying to cause confusion here. You analyzed this anomaly...

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.

(1:55 time mark)

...instead of the other one. Please analyze the anomaly in which the flag flutters the way it would in water when the guy moves the flag from right to left at the thirty second mark of the first video.

 

Exactly. No response from you as usual.

Ridiculous. At any speed the resistance from drag will cause massive billowing! You can jump up and down like the idiot Black Knight, but it does not alter that fact. Some things are REALLY too clear to obfuscate. This is one such case. I anticipate your success rate in swaying any viewers as zero. You would be laughed out of the debating hall, if they were dumb enough to let you in!

It doesn't flutter like it would in water. Fabric doesn't flutter in water, it is affected by immense drag. Any movement on the flag is from direct contact of his hand. There is not any chance whatsoever that a flag could behave like that in a liquid. You seem to have a ludicrously inflated value of your ignorant opinion.

Quite clearly you don't even believe your own opinion. You resort to obfuscation and sophism. But mainly of a delusional and repetitious kind.

Start with the correct assumption - fabric billows considerably in water. There is no speed at which any movement can be performed without massive and clearly noticeable drag.

 

His hand obviously doesn't touch the flag so that is not what made it move.

Chinese Space Walk - 2008

(30 second time mark)


Please explain the the similarity between the movements of the flags in the two clips.

Diving Turkey underwater turkish flag



Assuming the Chinese flag is in water, consider the difference in speeds of the currents causing the fluttering.

 

Wrong his left side is closer to the flag and obviously DID touch it and you are out right lying when you claim it did not.

The Chinese space walk was real and no evidence of any kind in your video clip disputes that fact

 

I must remember to spell out the mind crushing obvious to those without intelligence. His hand is holding the pole. THAT is what makes all the movement.

The Turkish flag is being moved by water currents. Quite clearly it is doing the exact thing I said happens. It is billowing to a large extent. Nowhere does the Chinese flag do this. If you think these two totally different scenarios are the same, there is something wrong with you.

Repeating the same stupid claim doesn't work! The same answer:-

Ridiculous. At any speed the resistance from drag will cause massive billowing! You can jump up and down like the idiot Black Knight, but it does not alter that fact. Some things are REALLY too clear to obfuscate. This is one such case. I anticipate your success rate in swaying any viewers as zero. You would be laughed out of the debating hall, if they were dumb enough to let you in!

What is this crap you keep going on about fluttering. Where is the billowing? There is none!

 

In order for that to be the cause of the flag's fluttering, his wrist would have to be rotating. It is clearly not rotating. You are wrong.

The difference between the movement of the Turkish flag and that of the Chinese flag is that the current is faster in the Chinese clip (the current caused by the movement). They are both in water.