Why there SHOULD have been a blast crater beneath the LEM!
03 Feb 2010, 02:27
Jarrah White thoroughly explains here why there should have been a blast crater under the LEM and debunks the explanations why there wasn't one. It is very thorough and references documented scientific facts and experiments. This one is a scholarly masterpiece!
Re: Why there SHOULD have been a blast crater beneath the LEM!
28 Feb 2010, 02:41
Another lame video 
White shows his lack of knowledge by stating that 70 decibels is half that of a jet engine. What a laughable comment!
Decibels is a logarithmic scale. Here are examples:
70 decibels is moderate traffic; hair dryer
150 decibels is not a plane at rest as the video shows, but a jet during takeoff
liar liar pants on fire
Finally the video starts the real topic
There is the claim of forming a cloud of dust. No atmosphere sorry.
The real claim is that the removal of material should expose the bedrock. Did it? The video makes no comment one way or the other. Then the video uses Ralph magazine as a source. Ha Ha Ha.
The conclusion of this trash video is that an engine turned off must immediately turn off. Fuel and oxidizers in the line would not burn after the engine is turned off.
So why was Armstrong purposely commenting on the blast crater? That is a lesson for those that want to know. I know, because I followed the space program. I am well aware of the concerns with a moon landing and why the landing site was chosen. Nut cases like White don't want to people to know. Even Creationists will tell someone more of the story.
How interesting Creationists and moon hoaxers collide.
White shows his lack of knowledge by stating that 70 decibels is half that of a jet engine. What a laughable comment!
Decibels is a logarithmic scale. Here are examples:
70 decibels is moderate traffic; hair dryer
150 decibels is not a plane at rest as the video shows, but a jet during takeoff
liar liar pants on fire
Finally the video starts the real topic
There is the claim of forming a cloud of dust. No atmosphere sorry.
The real claim is that the removal of material should expose the bedrock. Did it? The video makes no comment one way or the other. Then the video uses Ralph magazine as a source. Ha Ha Ha.
The conclusion of this trash video is that an engine turned off must immediately turn off. Fuel and oxidizers in the line would not burn after the engine is turned off.
So why was Armstrong purposely commenting on the blast crater? That is a lesson for those that want to know. I know, because I followed the space program. I am well aware of the concerns with a moon landing and why the landing site was chosen. Nut cases like White don't want to people to know. Even Creationists will tell someone more of the story.
How interesting Creationists and moon hoaxers collide.