New Apollo landing site photos

My prejudice is that we went to the moon just as history records.
Here's the detail of how the navigation works.

Trajectory Analysis - Lunar Travel
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/32431

The 'fly-by rocket' technology outlined for the Lunar Module and the
Service Module appear to be adequate.

TLI 3,117 m/s - S-IVB
L1 Orbit Insertion 706 m/s - Service Module
Perigee Lowering 212 m/s - Service Module
Apogee Lowering 623 m/s - Service Module

Powered Descent 1,952 m/s - Lunar Descent Module
Powered Ascent 1,952 m/s - Lunar Ascent Module

The Descent Module

Isp=311 sec
dV = 2,500 m/s
Ve = 3,054 m/s
M = 10,149 kg
p = 8,215 kg

The Ascent Module

Isp=311 sec
Ve=3,054 m/s
dV = 2,200 m/s
M=4,547 kg
p =2,335 kg

So, I don't know why the hell Brad keeps carping about how rockets are
incapable of landing and taking off from the moon.

Now, having shared by problems with Brad's analysis and by confidence
that the Apollo hardware was capable of sending men to the moon and
bringing them back...

Here is a real problem with Apollo camera work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

This is real embarrassing crap that if true, needs to be explained
thoroughly! Like, hey, we did this before TLI on the first lunar
landing just to have some video in case we lost signal or something
mid journey - that subsequently wasn't used because we didn't need
it. Something like that.

Anti-gravity (reactionless drive)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1031

So, in December 2009 we finally have Cornell tell us that a structured
array of magnetic material can be made to interact with a field of
virtual particles in the vacuum at the zero point in such a way as to
cause them to be ejected in a specific direction before they disappear
into the vacuum again - but not before the array of material produces
thrust in the opposite direction.

Wow... 2009.... we finally find out reactionless drives are possible.

Could we have known before and done something earlier?

What is a virtual particle and why is it important?

It all revolves around Heisenberg's uncertainty relation.

The "uncertainty relation" between the position and the momentum (mass
times velocity) of a subatomic particle, such as an electron has
profound implications for such fundamental notions as causality and
the determination of the future behavior of an atomic particle and
every conservation law classical physics takes for granted!

Because of the scientific and philosophical implications of the
seemingly harmless sounding uncertainty relations, physicists speak of
an uncertainty principle.

Heisenberg developed his matrix solutions which gave his uncertainty
relation in 1927.

Let that sink in.

1927.

Alright, so 1927 Heisenberg proves his uncertainty relation. Great!
That doesn't mean they knew everything we know in 2009.... hmm...

Actually, Heisenberg realized that the uncertainty relations had
profound implications for causality and all the conservation laws of
classical physics.

First, Heisenberg's argument was based on experiments used to measure
it. Heisenberg proved that orbits of electrons do not exist in nature
unless and until we observe them.

There were also far-reaching implications for the concept of causality
and the determinacy of past and future events and the conservation
laws. Heisenberg spoke of these shattering implications in his first
1927 paper - which is why everyone afterward spoke of the uncertainty
principle.

In 1947 Hendrik Casimir, once an assistant of Pauli, was working in
applied industrial research at the Philips Laboratory in the
Netherlands along with physicist J. T. G. Overbeek. They were
analyzing the theory of van der Waals forces. Casimir had the
opportunity to discuss ideas with Niels Bohr on a walk. According to
Casimir, Bohr ''mumbled something about zero-point energy'' being
relevant.

Now that's pretty amazing.

This led Casimir to an analysis of zero-point energy effects in the
related problem of forces between perfectly conducting parallel plates
which led to the Casimir Polder force.

A look at this history suggests that Bohr and others knew perfectly
well what was going on, all the way back 20 years earlier, and a
remark to an outsider like Casimir, let the cat out of the bag.

So, you've got to wonder about the 2009 paper. If you read it it
seems to me it could have been written 80 years ago. We can even
imagine that techniques of crystallizing silica polymers might have
been developed to produce the sort of effects the Cornell researchers
are talking about.

So, with the Cornell 2009 paper in mind, this radio broadcast has new
meaning...

Hoagland & Farrell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYI0Aa8XuVA

On Oct 27, 5:09*am, William Mook wrote:
So, with the Cornell 2009 paper in mind, this radio broadcast has new
meaning...

Hoagland & Farrellhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYI0Aa8XuVA

Plastic materials trace their origin back to 1868, when John Hyatt
came up with Celluloid. He mixed pyroxylin extracted from cotton and
nitric acid, with camphor to create Celluloid.

Celluloid quickly moved into many markets, including the first
photographic film used by George Eastman to produce the first motion
picture film in 1882. The material is still in use today under its
chemical name, cellulose nitrate.

In 1909, Dr. Lee Baekeland introduced phenolics - Bakelite! Baekeland
developed techniques for controlling and modifying reaction so that
products could be formed under heat and pressure where it turned to
liquid and then solidified.

The third major thrust in the development of plastics took place in
the 1920s with the introduction of cellulose acetate
ureaformaldehyde. Which can be processed like the phenolics, but can
also be molded into light colored articles that are more attractive
than the blacks and browns of phenoloics. 1920 Also saw the
development of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or vinyl, as it is commonly
called). Nylon was also developed in the late 1920s through the
classic research of W.T. Carothers.

Each decade saw the introduction of new and more versatile plastics.
In the 1930's, there were acrylic resins for signs and glazing and the
commercialization of polystyrene, which became the third largest-
selling plastic, literally revolutionizing segments of the house
wares, toys, and packaging industries. But not until the 1950s and
60s - THIRTY YEARS LATER!

Melamine resins were also introduced; these later became a critical
element (in the form of a binder) in the development of decorative
laminate tops, vertical surfacing, and the like.

Using electro-static, rather than electro-magnetic forces, and putting
them into the mers of a polymer - and controlling the reaction so that
regular lattices are formed to create the sort of spacing and
conductivity needed to produce the effects called for in the 2009
Cornell paper.

So, you create a special plastic crystal and mold it around the
electro/magnetic circuitry made from sequentially stamped foils of
copper - to create cool disk shaped reactionless drives.

Well reactionless is a misnomer. The vehicle is reacting against
something. Its reacting against the flux of virtual particles at the
zero point of the vacuum.

Now, *IF* this scenario is true, *WHEN* would we learn about it?
*WHAT* would we do with it?

On Oct 27, 1:00*am, William Mook wrote:
My prejudice is that we went to the moon just as history records.
Here's the detail of how the navigation works.

Trajectory Analysis - Lunar Travelhttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/32431

The 'fly-by rocket' technology outlined for the Lunar Module and the
Service Module appear to be adequate.

TLI * * * * * * * * * * * 3,117 m/s - S-IVB
L1 Orbit Insertion * 706 m/s - Service Module
Perigee Lowering * 212 m/s - Service Module
Apogee Lowering * 623 m/s - Service Module

Powered Descent 1,952 m/s - Lunar Descent Module
Powered Ascent * 1,952 m/s - Lunar Ascent Module

The Descent Module

* Isp=311 sec
* dV = 2,500 m/s
* Ve = 3,054 m/s
* * M = 10,149 kg
* * *p = * 8,215 kg

The Ascent Module

* Isp=311 sec
* *Ve=3,054 m/s
* dV = 2,200 m/s
* M=4,547 kg
* p =2,335 kg

So, I don't know why the hell Brad keeps carping about how rockets are
incapable of landing and taking off from the moon.

Now, having shared by problems with Brad's analysis and by confidence
that the Apollo hardware was capable of sending men to the moon and
bringing them back...

Here is a real problem with Apollo camera workhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

This is real embarrassing crap that if true, needs to be explained
thoroughly! *Like, hey, we did this before TLI on the first lunar
landing just to have some video in case we lost signal or something
mid journey - that subsequently wasn't used because we didn't need
it. *Something like that.

In other words, you fully accept their conditional laws of physics
plus all of their purely subjective science, just like you believe
that our NASA/Apollo era was always being perfectly open, honest and
thus telling us nothing but the whole truth, just like our government
supposedly told us nothing but the whole truth pertaining to their
part of that cold-war era. Gee whiz, I guess there's always a first
time for everything.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth wrote:

hey r u2 going to show me where the kids r r not?

William Mook wrote:

Here is a real problem with Apollo camera work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

I like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw


(for those who have seen it: it's the Mitchell & Webb
lunar conspiracy sketch)

On Oct 27, 1:00 am, William Mook wrote:
My prejudice is that we went to the moon just as history records.
Here's the detail of how the navigation works.

Trajectory Analysis - Lunar Travelhttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/32431

The 'fly-by rocket' technology outlined for the Lunar Module and the
Service Module appear to be adequate.

TLI 3,117 m/s - S-IVB
L1 Orbit Insertion 706 m/s - Service Module
Perigee Lowering 212 m/s - Service Module
Apogee Lowering 623 m/s - Service Module

Powered Descent 1,952 m/s - Lunar Descent Module
Powered Ascent 1,952 m/s - Lunar Ascent Module

The Descent Module

Isp=311 sec
dV = 2,500 m/s
Ve = 3,054 m/s
M = 10,149 kg
p = 8,215 kg

The Ascent Module

Isp=311 sec
Ve=3,054 m/s
dV = 2,200 m/s
M=4,547 kg
p =2,335 kg

So, I don't know why the hell Brad keeps carping about how rockets are
incapable of landing and taking off from the moon.

Now, having shared by problems with Brad's analysis and by confidence
that the Apollo hardware was capable of sending men to the moon and
bringing them back...

Here is a real problem with Apollo camera workhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

This is real embarrassing crap that if true, needs to be explained
thoroughly! Like, hey, we did this before TLI on the first lunar
landing just to have some video in case we lost signal or something
mid journey - that subsequently wasn't used because we didn't need
it. Something like that.

The "Something like that" works every time, especially when only NASA
gets to systematically obfuscate and then deny their denial by simply
bluffing. Too bad they still have no official Kodak forensics on
their side. In fact there's still no independent film forensics
whatsoever, so there is really no objective way of anyone telling how
much gamma and X-rays were encountered, or explain why so much of our
physically dark moon imaged as such an off-white guano kind of pastel
gray that was also entirely silica crystal/ceramic or otherwise
nonreactive to all the raw UV.

Others doing their own investigative look-see at all things NASA/
Apollo have offered a number of other screw-ups and/or flubs by our
NASA/Apollo guys that supposedly had all the right stuff to prevent
such mistakes.

I noticed how you'd asked to see the R&D documentation (including
images of its test firing) pertaining to that rocket engine utilized
on their ascent module. Did anyone come up with that?
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...ent_Engine.jpg
As fueled by more conventional fuels (Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne
RS-18 used liquid oxygen and liquid methane) instead of those Apollo
hypergolic propellants:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-again-226066/

“hypergolic propellants actually produce a nearly transparent flame”
“The flame of hypergol is nearly colorless, slightly blue”

The exhaust exit velocity of only 3 km/sec gives this 0.6 km/sec over
the local escape velocity.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Oct 28, 3:05*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
Here is a real problem with Apollo camera work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xUGRngAhBI

I like this one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

(for those who have seen it: it's the Mitchell & Webb
lunar conspiracy sketch)

Pretty funny. The rocket is the key element. I think it started in
1961 when JFK decided to set the US on the course to the moon. It was
only in 1968, according to some that the risks were just considered to
great to risk actual crews beyond the Van Allen belts and NASA punked
out.

I believe the theorists at least say the film and video records are
not consistent with an actual flight in some details. This could mean
something as simple as putting promotional videos and photos in the
record for public relations effect or something as complex as not
risking astronauts in an actual landing attempt - but appearing to
actually carry out a landing.

Those who believe that the latter case is an accurate reflection of
what happened must believe the mission went something like this;

The Saturn V launches the S-IVB, LEM, CSM, into LEO. The CSM
separates and connects with a LEM cabin that is cut-away from the LEM
and the CSM pulls the LEM cabin away from a modified Ascent/Descent
stack. Leaving the CSM/LEM cabin in LEO, the S-IVB then fires again
and carries the unpiloted Ascent/Descent stack to a TLI and it coasts
to the lunar environment. The Descent Module fires and enters lunar
orbit. The stack also carries a transponder that repeats back signals
sent to it from the ground so others can track it. The lightweight
LEM then fires its descent engine and lands automatically on the
Moon. Equipment is deployed, samples retrieved automatically. The
ascent module is then fired and brings the samples film and photos
back to Earth. The CM is deorbited and is recovered at sea. The
lunar return capsule is also recovered at this time.

This would be very diffuclt to carry out secretly. Communications
command and control would have to be set up for both the automated
lunar mission at the same time there was a manned orbital mission.
This would have to be done without discovery and would involve a huge
number of people.

It also doesn't explain the CSM in Lunar orbit, which was tracked
separately from the LEM on the lunar surface. The CM cannot function
without the SM attached. The SM Service Propulsion Engine and
Service Propulsion System Tanks are located along the center-line of
the SM - and could be removed and placed as a stage on the LM. That
could carry a second transponder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Servicemodule.JPG

This is a lot of engineering to do between Apollo 8 and Apollo 11.
Cut the cabin and Life Support away from the LEM, Cut the Propulsion
System out of the SM and attach it somehow to the LEM. Build
transponders and automated systems for the unpiloted components.
Build and test the command and control needed to sustain the flight
without mishap.

You may recall the the Lunar Module was delayed leading to Apollo 8
without the LEM. Apollo 9 deployed the LEM in Earth Orbit and tested
it there. Apollo 10 tested the LEM in Lunar Space. Apollo 11
landed on the Moon.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...inedrawing.png

So, in the scenario here according to conspiracy theorists once in LEO
the LEM cabin separates from a modified LEM. The SM propulsion system
is sitting beneath the LEM. After the cabin is retrieved, the entire
assembly executes TLI leaving the CSM and LEM Cabin in orbit, without
a Service Module. The LEM/SM Propulsion unit flies to the moon. The
SM Propulsion unit enters Lunar Orbit. LEM Descent stage fires,
landing on the Moon. Equipment deployed, samples retrieved, Ascent
module returns. The CSM deborbit near where the LEM return capsule
comes down. Samples films and photos are retrieved.

Like the skit says - it seems alot harder than actually doing what you
said you were going to do - assuming Apollo 8 was real. No one has
said they doubt that.

Apollo 8, December 1968 - which for all intents and purposes - seems
to have actually gone there. There was no lunar module on this
flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnyNXLXl8iA

Saturn V Launch 1968
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk

Looks pretty damn real to me. No one has said Apollo 8 didn't go to
the moon or quibbled with its video or photo record.

And if Apollo 8 survived the journey, why wouldn't Apollo 11? The
Apollo 8 crew appears healthy and happy.

Nobody has said that Apollo 8 wasn't real. If we could do Apollo 8 in
December 1968, and the crew survived without mishap, I don't see why
we couldn't have done Apollo 11 as advertised. The implied thesis of
the film just doesn't hold water. At most they've shown that NASA's
media department sent out promotional videos and so forth - to enhance
the record. Keeping the crew in orbit, and sending an unmanned
vehicle to the moon to return samples and reuniting them on Earth - to
save the crew from the risks of radiation beyond the van Allen belt
might have conceivably been done with the Apollo hardware. But, the
time frame and the logistics to support it just don't seem to make a
helluva lot of sense. It makes more sense that folks at NASA engaged
in real wrong-doing are putting out weird stories just to obscure that
wrong-doing.