Saturday, May 13, 2017

Orange Juice On The Moon

This is a really good one, very observant and damning ...

NASA's technology is so superior that the helmets leak orange juice and don't suddenly depressurize explosively and blow the astro-nut's head off.


Sam said...

I watched the first twenty minutes and couldn't stand the stupidity anymore. A bag hanging like a pendulum would rock a long time in vacuum. That he put the camera in a bag means...nothing. So the astronauts didn't follow every single instruction in miles of paperwork. Like they remember all of this stuff. It's just a check list and they generally follow it but surely you don't expect them to remember all of that.

The whole camera splotch was explained. The idiot who made the clip acts like dirt suspended in water when the water evaporates would not look exactly like the splotch. He then went on and on about how it couldn't happen but even if they were not in space how would the internal lens get spills on it? Remember how he talks about how all this is live and not everyone is in on it? The whole thing is stupid.

The so called shadow could be easily explained by noise. They didn't have digital filters there's all kinds of noise in the pictures. I remember watching TV when a I was a kid and we didn't have the great filtering we have today you would see banding like this at times. A slight glitch in the horizontal sync would cause this. The parts to make this were analog capacitors and resister networks. The signal went all the way from the moon to Earth and then had to be synced from an identical circuit on Earth. He shows a bunch of color banding, a error in transmission, but then when he gets an error that looks like a shadow with banding then all of a sudden it's a huge conspiracy. Well which is it. Is all the banding and distortion in all scenes a conspiracy? The whole thing is stupid breathless "look at that" when what they're showing has easy explanations.

I've looked at a bunch of these films and have never, ever, ever seen any of these stupid "we didn't go to the moon" films that didn't blow up stupid easily explained events into some mystical ignorance. I'm going to quit watching these I must have seen 20 of them? A lot, and every time they're stupid nonsense.

The reason I think we went to the moon is simple. We could go and to fake it would be massively risky if it were found out. No one has ever provided any information that shows we couldn't go to the moon. We know they didn't fake the rockets taking off and that's more than half the battle if you can get to low earth orbit. The trip to low earth orbit is the hardest part.

The reason we stopped was because the whole thing was dangerous and risky with the tech we had.

The whole radiation hazard is a myth. The total exposure would have been about 2 rems. Not good but well within health standards. People in Taiwan lived in a building that had nuclear waste in the sheet rock(from China) with MUCH higher levels of exposure and had BETTER health from stimulating the immune system.

The cold war was serious business and to fail in it you could be wiped out, forever. People who didn't grow up during the cold war don't think about how dangerous and serious the whole thing was. The USSR used to have over 30,000 nuclear missiles pointed at the US.

Texas Arcane said...


Obvious there was not a clear line between the inside of their suits and the outside, which is not possible if these "missions to the moon" were real. In fact, the whole casual nature (unseen) of moving from a pressurized environment to an external vacuum in a pressurized suit from inside a vehicle not much bigger than a toyota on end is kind of ... insane. This stuff is just not convincing. This is not quite the casual affair depicted here.

Edward said...

That is one thing I haven't seen very well explained. The lunar module was pressurised, as they weren't wearing the full outdoor suits while they landed the thing, but where is the airlock between them and the outer hatch?
Are there some better schematics of the thing somewhere, or did they both get into the outdoor spacesuits and then just depressurise the whole thing before climbing out?
Were they ever inthe situation of having one of them inside the module with it still pressurised and the outer one outside in a spacesuit?
Presumably they didn't have enough extra air supply to keep wasting it like that.

Edward said...

Ok, guess that answers that one, the depressurised the whole thing, so they didn't need an airlock.
Guess when there are only two people on the thing it isn't so difficult to make sure that everyone is suited up before you open the hatch.

Sam said...

I didn't see any of that and won;t be. They made so many simple mistakes in the first 20 minutes that I see no need to watch the rest. The best that I can say about this is it's a great film to show people to show that people who don't believe we went to the moon shouldn't be taken seriously. I have never seen one "we didn't go to the moon" film that didn't have huge glaringly obvious holes in their "there are holes" story.

I think it's extremely likely that the people who make these make them to confuse people about real conspiracies of which there are many. Like building #7 falling the same speed as a rock dropped in air on 9-11. The important part being that if the building fell the same speed as a rock "in air" then the building was only held up "by air" as they fall the same. How that could be without demo of the building...I don't know. So they make a bunch of films on all kinds of things like the moon landing, UFO's and stuff like that to make people hesitant to believe in anything.

I've seen some "no rovers on Mars" that look convincing but from now on I'll assume they're lies also to confuse people.

FrankNorman said...

I'm pretty sure that if you are going on a spacewalk, you don't open the outside hatch without first depressurizing the inside of the airlock - or of the cabin, if you don't have an airlock.
So it would really be climbing from a inside a vehicle that was (at the time) as much in a state of near-vacuum as the lunar environment.

Only when you climb back in and seal the hatch, would you repressurize the cabin.

Texas Arcane said...


The depiction of space travel as a sort of lark with buggies and golfing is not something that happened in the real world. If you allow your mind to decompress you will start to see it. Perfect vacuum is not a joke or something you can make a few mistakes in. Explosive decompression would be like a major bomb going off instantly.

Edward said...

It's hardly a lark, it took a decade of preparation, cost billlions of dollars, and 10 previous missions leading up to the one where they finally landed, and even that one didn't actually have the buggy on board.
So they essentially wasted 10 of those 'massive rockets' without even trying to complete the main mission, in order to practice all the docking procedures and orbital transfer manoeuvres.

They made lots of copies of all the modules, and tested them at the bottom of deep tanks of water, and probably in vacuum chambers too as far as I know, so they were probably pretty confident they were actually tight.
It doesn't seem like they really left that much to chance if the Apollo 13 movie is to be believed. That flight manual was pretty thick and they had a bunch of tools and things on board.

It's not like we hadn't already had decades or centuries of experience doing similar things with submarines and diving bells, so they know how thick you have to make things to withstand a given pressure differential, positive or negative.

Sam said...

FrankNorman said,"...I'm pretty sure that if you are going on a spacewalk, you don't open the outside hatch without first depressurizing the inside of the airlock - or of the cabin, if you don't have an airlock..."

This is what they did in the LEM. So yes it's true.

"...Explosive decompression would be like a major bomb going off instantly..."

Not true. The skin is a fairly tough leather. Spacesuits were made that were NOT airtight. They had a knit that pressed in the skin to hold it in place with inflatable pads in the nether regions and bubble helmets and pads near the shoulders. People don't explode in vacuum. Not that it's good for you.

NASA is still doing research on these with better materials. The old ones they had people working in a vacuum with no ill effects.

Texas Arcane said...


People have now seen so many Hollywood movies and fake spacewalks they have come to believe that exposure to a perfect vacuum at absolute zero from a pressurized suit is not that big a deal. Sure they think, you saw in 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, outer space would be like a really chilly refridgerator except with no air. Not that bad really as long as you get back inside in a few minutes.

So people believe that guys fucking around like frat boys taking falls on the moon around sharpened stakes and jagged edges and leaky orange juice seals is a reality. Yet if a person is suddenly exposed to the ocean pressure in water at 2000 feet most people understand they would be gooified in seconds long before they drowned. Yet deep ocean pressure is a joke compared to the supposed perfect vacuum instant cryofreezer of space. Sure, I saw in that movie ... not such a big deal.


I woke up.

Edward said...

OK, so I looked into it a bit more, it may have been nearly 50 years ago, and over by a decade before I was even born, but there is still plenty of information around about such a major project, as it wasn't done in total secrecy, and there are lots of people still alive that were involved in it at the time, or involved in similar projects, who can answer a lot of your more detailed questions.

So atmospheric pressure at sea level on earth is 14.69 psi.
That pressure increases by a further 14.5 psi per 10m of depth you descend underwater, and decreases the further up you ascend through the atmosphere, so far so obvious I guess.

The pressure at the top of Mt Everest is 4.89 psi, and people have actually been known to safely summit it without using oxygen, provided they take the time to acclimatise properly at base camp.

The minimum pressure you can survive without a pressure suit is apparently 0.906 psi, or 0.06 atmospheres, so roughly what you find outside at 65000ft I guess, which is admittedly quite a bit lower than on the top of Mt. Everest. At that pressure your blood will begin to boil apparently, which would probably hurt a lot, and yet people have regularly been up really much higher using various balloons and things and so they had already learned about what was necessary for a human to survive in those kinds of rarefied environments, without using up any rather precious rockets in the process..

Regular aeroplanes do that kind of thing all the time too, maintaining roughly ~12psi on the inside against only ~4psi on the outside at while flying over 36,000ft, which is like a 0.6 atmosphere difference, and it's probably been a while since one just explosively decompressed for no good reason.

The Apollo missions did not even attempt to maintain sea level atmospheric pressure within the cabin of the service module or lunar module, in fact it was a lot more like working in the pressure at the top of Mt Everest, and the atmosphere inside the ship was set to a different mix of oxygen to nitrogen to help compensate for this to allow them both breath and move about relatively freely.

People in diving bells can gradually acclimatise their bodies to a much-much higher than atmospheric pressure in order to be able to enter and leave an underwater capsule in relative ease, to work for extended periods deep underwater without spending all the time compressing and decompressing between each work-shift.
And yes, mistakes have been made in the past, and a very rapid decompression can be extremely painful, for a fairly short period at least...

Edward said...

The pressure differential between 9 atmospheres and 1 that these people were exposed to in that accident is far far greater than the differential between ~0.25 atmospheres and zero that the astronauts in the lunar module would have been exposed to had the hatch or hull suddenly failed on them, but obviously these hatches are designed like a bulkhead door, where the greater pressure existing on the inside of the cabin than on the outside is what actually maintains the necessary airtight seal around the edge of the door, as the door only opens inwards rather than outwards, and also obviously, by the time they were ready to even attempt to open the hatch they would have already safely and slowly equalised the pressure between the inside of the cabin and the outside because they were already safely in their pressurised suits so the cabin pressure no longer mattered much to their survival.

So the pressure differential the lunar module hull was required to maintain wasn't even as great as that maintained by a regular airliner, and was far far less than that which is very regularly managed by a diving bell coming up to sea level from working just 20m down, or a submarine descending to the depths, albeit in the opposite direction, keeping the pressure out rather than in.

Apollo 11 was apparently on the moon for 21 hours between landing and taking off, and they only spent 2.5 hours of that outside of the vehicle, so that's plenty of time to very carefully prepare everything and go through the checklists step-by-step.
On the later missions they had a substantially redesigned lunar module designed for much longer surface missions and EVAs, and that's the one that actually had the buggy and so forth.

But that's why the astronauts that do these things train for at least months if not years beforehand, learning to manage themselves in low pressure/low oxygen environments, learning to withstand high g-forces in a centrifuge, and also short periods of zero-gravity in the 'vomit comet', and they also have hours and hours in a simulator exactly matching the environment they will actually be in on the mission, and lots of checklists to follow during the mission, so provided they always remember to do things in the right order and rather slowly bring the internal pressure to match the external pressure before they open the hatch, things seem to work out OK.

Edward said...

I mean, even if you are as rich as Charles Simonyi, having made an easy billion by inflicting Microsoft Office on the planet, and so can afford to pay your own way into space, they still won't let you go, replacing an 'official' (you know, the ex-military ex-test-pilot type) and much more highly-trained member of the team, unless you are really physically fit enough, and can pull your own weight on the mission, and also know what to do in any conceivable emergency and so forth. Even a famous 'space tourist' isn't really a 'passenger' at this stage of development.

People do actually think all of these things through, and in far greater detail than maybe you would imagine, to make sure everything works as planned, and the engineers usually take the danger they are putting the crews lives in very seriously.

Just being a famous pop star isn't seen as sufficient qualification yet, it's not available to any idiot with a lot more money than sense..

It ain't exactly like Star Trek yet anyway, not even like Zefram Cochrane era Star Trek., which is still supposedly a century away from even 'Enterprise' level tech.

Texas Arcane said...


I don't believe one second of it anymore. It's been part of my growth curve. I realize now what a load of rubbish it all is.

Ave said...

For me the real killer argument is the absence of stars, any stars at all. No argument that was given makes any sense in that regard. Even with bad cameras you get to take pictures of them at night.

If we go further into the whole mythology, beyond playing golf they could have designed the missions to add up construction material for an experimental colony. For instance that rover could have been made modular and turned into a construction/traction vehicle of sorts.

They had such advanced design conceptions already at the age of airships ( ) at the time where Africa was the equivalent of the Moon.

Also, they could have attached small propulsion & landing modules on discarded satellites to provide construction material to any lunar installation. Given the enormous costs of propelling any mass of material into orbit, this could have made any colony project much more viable.

There was no design for this because there were never going to be any moon colonies. Beyond out atmosphere it seems there is only poison, and they figured that out pretty early in the game, both the USSR and the USA.

What we have instead is the modern equivalent of the Antikythera Mechanism ( ), a very advanced analogic computer that was built in secret so that religious leaders could pretend to understand the gods.

However, I do not despair that one day we will build massive ships with enough shielding to reach out. In the mean time, religions and businessmen rule mankind and they thrive of vaporware, both categories.

Edward said...

Surely a hard vacuum is just zero pressure. So the difference between no pressure at all and pressure at sea level, is roughly the same as the difference between the pressure at sea level and the pressure under just 10m of water.
It's not that big a deal to make a tank to hold things airtight at that kind of a pressure differential. A vacuum isn't somehow magical, it's not like a temperature of absolute zero.

The suits are internally pressurised to 5psi, and the suits are made of a flexible mesh so they don't just balloon out from the body. The body heat from the astronaut keeps them warm like a drysuit does in cold water, and they also had a bunch of pipes running down the arms and legs acting as a cooling system.

My brother does Scuba diving, so he regularly goes down at least 20m I think, and that's just in a dry suit, you just have to be careful to take the right amount of time to come back up to avoid decompression sickness, but that's all part of the training.

Within a properly designed submersible people have safely gone down 1000+ metres below sea level, so like 100 atmospheres of pressure, where yeah, if you tried to go outside you'd pretty much be crushed to a tin can.

Edward said...

Well it was part of my growth curve to realise back in 2012-2013 that I was emotionally falling way down the rabbit hole into a paranoid spiral and so do something to pull myself out of it.
So I'd like to think I'm fairly rational, though others might not agree.

So while I think that others probably still want to deceive me in lots of ways, and don't really care all that much if I live or die, I don't think they are out to kill me, or really much care what I think, and there are probably still a few people that care a lot more for me even if I can't currently feel it.

But no, I'm still far more prepared to believe that Charles Simonyi really did actually visit ISS via a Soyez capsule, than I am to believe in God or an afterlife, or that the so-called 'elite' really want to kill me and destroy everything. (Not saying they don't still put profits ahead of safety as regards things like vaccines, but that's just a problem of how our system of incentives is currently structured, people don't even really want to believe the things that are bad for business etc. It's not really a planned genocide, more like a tragedy of the commons)

No one would go to that much trouble to fake it all just to shake my 'faith', it really doesn't mean anything outside of my own head.
So I'm going to accept 'help', and try to live in the fresh air a bit more, not hide away in a bunker, because the world isn't going to end tomorrow, it just keeps moving on, and with any luck I'll still be around to see 2050.

Edward said...

I just wonder, if you don't believe that ISS is real, what do you think would motivate someone like Charles Simonyi to want to, in theory, spend $60 million of his own money, to spend months training in space camp in Russia, for the purpose of spending time pretending to go into space and filming his adventures, pretending to float around in zero gravity, on a ground based mockup of ISS hidden away somewhere on earth, for the purpose of some long running grand-scale orchestrated mass deception that we have a bunch of stuff floating around in low earth orbit?

He spent a load of his own money and masses of his valuable time only to sign up to having to then lie about what he spent the money on and how he spent his time for the rest of his life?

This is not some smarmy psychopathic businessman, or even a self-publicist like Richard Brandon trying to continually promote their personal brand, this is someone who wrote a real PhD on large scale software engineering techniques while working at Xerox Parc, and whatever you think of Word and Excel was a highly accomplished software architect at Microsoft in its heyday, and then founded another businsss, recently re-acquired by Microsoft which actually creates some fairly sophisticated meta-reflective tools for software engineering.
Not someone really known for spending their life continually faking their skills and accomplishments, or taking the credit for the work of others.

You can just get a copy of an old version of Word or Excel and decompile it to see how it works, that isn't something that can be easily faked just for TV, the code has to really be written to work and run on your machine, and to make the transition from Word 5/6 to Word 95/97 seems like it was a fairly big jump involving laying out the core design principles and orchestrating the work of teams of hundreds of people.

If he knew he was not actually going to go into space after all, I don't believe someone as obviously smart and accomplished in other areas as he is, would bother signing up just to have to lie about it. It makes no sense at all.

Gary said...


You may find it interesting to read theses two pieces, both incredibly rational:

The writer is an astrophysicist.

It's easy to believe in God when you grasp what He created.
I hope this is useful.

Sam said...

"...For me the real killer argument is the absence of stars, any stars at all. No argument that was given makes any sense in that regard..."

This has been explained over and over and over. The stars are not very bright. Imagine you were looking at a candle on the beach in full sunlight from a mile off. You might not even be able to see the flame the brightness of the sun would block out the dim flame of the candle but at night with no lights you could see it. Same as you not being able to see stars in the city from the streetlights. The Apollo cameras could not pick up the stars because the Moon's light was so bright.

While I'm at it I'll destroy another stupid myth. They say that having light come from different directions on the moon means that there were studio lights in different places and not just the Sun. Ok. Look at the Moon when it's 1/2 full. You know that the Moon is 90 degrees away from the earth. Like a 90 degrees triangle with the moon at the angle and the Sun on one leg and the Earth on another. If the Sunlight didn't reflect off the Moons dirt in more than one direction then you couldn't see the Moon at all when it was 1/2 full as the sunlight is bouncing at a 90 degree angle to hit the Earth. We all can see the light is fairly bright.

Hell lets kill some more. They say the light from the Sun is so bright in Space it would burn you. More lies. The light at the Earth surface is around 1120 W/m2 in space it's around "...At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV),[7] with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet.[8]..:. We all know a pair of cheap blue blocker TV sunglasses can block most of the ultraviolet. Think NASA can't make a cheap sunglass lens?

Edward covered the pressure deal. I repeat that you do not immediately explode in space. "... Skin is almost completely gas-tight and strong enough to withstand a pressure differential of well over one atmosphere. You also wouldn’t instantly freeze. In a vacuum, the only way to lose heat is by radiation (which occurs very slowly for a relatively cool object like a human body) or by evaporation of fluid. You would still die of course, but it would be by asphyxiation. Your blood holds enough oxygen for about 15 seconds of brain activity. After that you’d black out, with complete brain death following within three minutes.

But if you were rescued in the first 30 seconds, you’d probably have nothing worse than ‘love bite’-type bruises over all your skin..."

Every single "we didn't go to the moon" page or video I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot, are all stupid bullshit. I think that the jerks who are destroying the West (Jews) are putting out this stuff to demoralize Whites and make you believe that nothing is true. They do it to confuse you and make you feel bad. Psychopaths do this constantly. It's called "gaslighting". It's a constant drip of lies to make you question reality. Like the "real" reality that the Jews did 9-11 and are destroying our countries.

Ave said...

@Sam ( from )

Care to explain how we can see stars here ? (in spite of glass + daylight reflection + atmosphere)

Texas Arcane said...


I've seen stars from an aircraft at night, so thick you could spread them.

All this space travel crap is really lousy masonic theatre.

Ave said...

@ Tex


The good news is that any person travelling by airplane, especially by daylight (important !) can take pictures from the stars out of his passenger window and make his own judgment on that moon landing business.

Edward said...

But it wasn't night on the moon, it was day. That's what he's trying to explain. The sky is black not blue during the day on the moon because there is no atmosphere, but it's not the atmosphere that stops you seeing the stars in the daytime, it's the relative brightness of the sunlight vs the light of the other stars.

Texas Arcane said...


In their orbits around the "dark side" of the moon none of the astronauts reported seeing the stars explode in all their glory, rather at least two of them are on record as saying they didn't see any stars then either. I find this a boring hoax at this stage because it is so badly done. I've outgrown this stuff. I don't need it any more.

Sam said...

Edward has it right about the stars. In the plane photo apparently the light "below" was dim enough to mot block out the stars. All of you know it's hard to see stars in the city just from the light reflecting off of clouds. On the Moon it was super bright. All of you have seen the moon and I told you how it reflects at all angles. Hell you can see the thing yourself it's hardly dim. I wonder if you guys are not just pulling my leg because this is not hard.

"...In their orbits around the "dark side" of the moon none of the astronauts reported seeing the stars explode in all their glory, rather at least two of them are on record as saying they didn't see any stars then either..."

That's wasn't dark on the dark side of the Moon.

"...The idiomatic phrase "dark side of the Moon" does not refer to "dark" as in the absence of light, but rather "dark" as in unknown: until humans were able to send spacecraft around the Moon, this area had never been seen..."

"...I find this a boring hoax at this stage because it is so badly done..."

You can find it boring all you want but what you haven't provided is any evidence that shows they didn't go to the Moon.