Another reason to love Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Aiseop]

dammit, got sucked into the looney conspiracy world again. lol

[Aaron Gustaveson]

This is a common argument used when trying to assert that 17 Saudi's and a dude in a cave blew up WTC1,2, and 7. As far as it "not being exposed", it has been exposed... the fact that we're talking about it proves that.

Also notice that you have changed my argument from the basic physics involved in achieving a stable orbit to something about photographs and shadows, which I never mentioned.

Obviously this isn't the right "forum" for a real debate over things like moon landing fakery, or 911 truth. The truth about all those things is out there. Investigate if you want, or don't. Believe what you want.

But you presented no "basic physics", just a number.

Also I dont think you know what the term "linear velocity" means because it doesnt make sense the way you used it. I took physics and biological application of physic a few years ago and I was taught that linear velocity is this,
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mo...las-d_941.html
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/d...ar-velocity-65

Beside the fact that you probably meant to type "linear acceleration", and not, "velocity", it still makes no sense. Linear velocity only denotes the relative way that velocity is measured, as opposed to angular velocity.

Looking at the gross weight of the craft (LEM), the moon gravity, escape velocity and the amount of fuel present, it seems to all make sense. The math is a bit difficult because the craft loses weight as it burns up its fuel (and I dont want to verify the thrust that they could produce, its really hard) but Im not seeing a problem? I'd bee curious to see the math you did showing that they could not have escaped the moon gravity and why you believe that other nations would not have exposed this obvious oversight decades ago?

[Craig Murray]

But you presented no "basic physics", just a number.

I did not say "linear velocity", I said "velocity". Which is, in this case, implicitly linear. But escape velocity has nothing to do with acceleration, so that part of your comment suggests some misunderstanding on your part.

As far as your argument that "Russian government would expose it" I think you are making some large assumptions about what a given government thinks, or why it does what it does. This is, again, an argument you hear all the time with respect to WTC-7. "If it was a controlled demolition, certainly someone would have come out and blown the whistle". In both cases the argument that "someone would expose it" when weighed again the massive amount of empirical evidence is a very weak argument. Not to mention that if the Russian government came out and said it was fake, you and nearly all Americans would not have believed it anyway.

As far as the physics, they are well beyond the scope of this thread, but I will give some links to help (assuming you are actually interested). If you are interested in the velocity required to escape the Moon's orbit, you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
That link, and other source will consistently list the escape velocity of the Moon as 2400 meters per second (also note this is a measure of velocity not acceleration. Acceleration would have been listed in meters per second per second m/sec/sec) This is because acceleration is a measure of the change in velocity over time.

In my original comment I said "basic physics". That was misleading. The physics is actually quite complicated. The details and explanation is well become the scope of this thread, not to mention typing the mathematical symbols required for summation and integration into a forum post would be difficult. If you are genuinely interested (and have not already made up your mind based on what you want to believe) you can begin by learning to calculate delta-v. Also you need to understand specific impulse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/specimp.html (this one is going to be particularly important to you later)

This will give you a basis to understand Tsiolkovsky's equation. This equation, which far more primitive that what you need to actually launch a rocket, can help get you started in understanding the calculus involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolko...ocket_equation
At that point you will be ready to start double-checking the numbers listed by NASA for the ascent module, listed here a few pages down
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

But we're still not there yet. From here we need to talk about rocket types, fuel, oxidizers, and their respective volumes, masses, and engine efficiency.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm
That link will show you various liquid-fuel engines and their ISP, as well as the densities of various fuel types. You can cross-reference wikipedia to determine which types were used in the lunar ascent module.

After you have become fluent in all of these concepts we can do what wikipedia will not do, calculate the burn time. To do this, go back and refer to this page again:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
in figure 1.21 you will see the equation used to determine burn-time.

Calculate that number, based on all the information NASA gives you. Then you also need the rate of fuel consumption, which is also conspicously missing from the NASA numbers. Some of the details are not available anywhere in fact, as they are a matter of national security. But using known controls you can take some educated guesses.

What you'll find is that you need a sustained burn of more than 10 minutes to come even close to the 2400 m/sec required. If you really do your homework you will also notice that achieving a stable orbit does not require the entire escape velocity, but is generally assumed to be about 71% of it. Since the force of gravity is reduced by the inverse-square of the distance, most of the velocity is required to get into orbit, with a small fraction required to go from a low-orbit to escape the system completely.

At this point we have to do the calculus, which I am not willing to do here. It's not my intention to try to convince you of anything. In fact I was reluctant to even type this response. In the end I chose to mainly because there may be some people reading it who have some background in math or physics who are open minded and actually interested in doing the math. So I'm trying to provide the resources you need to do so.

[Craig Murray]

To summarize in simple terms, what you are looking for is this: calculate the burn time required based on the ISP. Then calculate the rate of fuel consumption to determine how long the burn could possibly last, given the amount of fuel. You'll find these do not add up at all, not even close.

Despite all this many people will simply refuse to believe it. You see this all the time in WTC-7. You can see a video of it going down at freefall speed, next to a video of 10 different controlled demolitions, yet most people still refuse to believe. Same thing here, but despite that, I'll show you a couple pictures.

Here is the rocket required to achieve escape velocity of the Earth
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1grd5rQxV1qi3lpp.jpg

And here is a film of the lunar module lifting off from the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908

This, for most people who look with open eyes, is just as obvious as WTC-7 controlled demolition videos. Strange then, that so many have such a hard time seeing the truth.

[Craig Murray]

Heck, that lunar blastoff video alone is definitive proof... notice how it moves upward at a constant velocity? That's not how rockets work... the velocity should be very very low at first, and then gaining velocity over time... like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY

It's also amusing how the camera tracks the lift off... guess that was done with optical tracking and computers right?

The whole thing, if you really look into it, is a joke.

[Craig Murray]

If you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
And you don't think it's obviously a complete fake, then I really don't know what else to say. I guess I'm crazy and wrong, just another conspiracy theorist.

[Kyle Spalla]

Obviously this isn't the right "forum" for a real debate over things like moon landing fakery, or 911 truth.

You must be new here then.

[Craig Murray]

Aaron, incase any of my replies seem hostile at all, that is not my intention. I've read a number of your posts and you seem like an honest, compassionate, up-front guy. I mean you no disrespect at all.

I think what I'm learning as I get older is that you cannot force the red-pill on people. It's an act of free will to take it. The majority choose blue, and who can blame them?

People have difficult jobs, kids of raise, bills to pay, so many concerns the last thing they want to do it have their entire belief system up-ended. I harbor no-ill will toward someone who chooses blue.

I should probably learn to be more gentle with these kinds of subjects. And in fact I was and still am nervous about posting so much material into what is primarily a JJ forum.

However I've seen enough of Master Bravo on JRE and his own podcasts to feel comfortable taking a little bit of liberty here. The forum is even named Nibiru!

Everyone can choose, and both choices are just fine.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

You did write linear velocity, look at post# 2.
The reason I wrote the you must have meant linear acceleration is because I though you were saying the way the craft accelerates does not look right, if there is a misunderstanding on my part it is in my assumption as to what you meant when you wrote, "not to mention that it obviously lifts off with linear velocity (instead of velocity being affected by acceleration of a rocket)."

I think you are the one making large and incorrect assumptions as to how Russia would respond to a fake moon landing. What empirical evidence are you referring to? Was the USSR and the US government actully secret allies? Why would the American public not believing the USSR's exposure be a deterrent to the USSR to release the information?

The link to basics of escape velocity for the moon was obviously not needed. Nor was most of the rest of your post. I already stated that Ive taken physics and Ive also finished all of my calculus classes. It seems you posted this basic background info as opposed to the actual math that you believe shows a problem. All the background on how to do the math was not asked for.

You could have just said, "I haven't done the math".

Im also not asking you to convince me or anyone else of your beliefs, I just wanted to know why YOU think what you're saying is true. I assumed you'd have the information to go along with your position.

I dont claim to know if the moon landing were faked or not.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Heck, that lunar blastoff video alone is definitive proof... notice how it moves upward at a constant velocity? That's not how rockets work... the velocity should be very very low at first, and then gaining velocity over time... like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY

It's also amusing how the camera tracks the lift off... guess that was done with optical tracking and computers right?

The whole thing, if you really look into it, is a joke.

I dont believe that anyone can analyze with their eyeballs what the acceleration or velocity of the craft was. It seems to me that as an object moves farther away it become very hard to judge acceleration and velocity especially when you are viewing from below the craft as opposed to from far away.

How it was filmed and how the camera moved are very interesting questions. I assume if you can get people on the moon and back though, you could figure out the camera stuff as well. That is assuming they actully got guys to the moon though.