(December 9, 2014 at 8:29 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 8, 2014 at 11:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Something similar actually exists, though not as small as in Thunderball. Tell you what though, as an experienced deep diver, I would not ever carry one - my redundant tank has between 5 and 40 times the capacity - and is usually strapped to my dive buddy's back. I have no delusion that there's enough air in one of those tiny tanks to get safely to the surface from 40 meters depth.

Or just do what Lara Croft did in that Tomb Raider movie-- cut your hand, wait for a shark to swim up to you, punch it in the face, then grab its dorsal fin (because punching a shark in the face will make it swim to the surface). Presto! You're saved.

Heh, if you're breathing on SCUBA, more like "Presto! You're bent. Hope you enjoy a trip to the hyperbaric chamber, or emboli."

(December 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm)lifesagift Wrote:

(December 9, 2014 at 1:43 am)psychoslice Wrote: I like to use the net so I can laugh at people like you lol.

Feel free my friend.. lol. Glad I've been of use to you today !
(and if you were trying to put me down, you missed!)

I only reply to people the way they reply to me, now be nice.

My big problem with the moon landing is I am an audio engineer and I cannot believe for one second that they could sit in a 1/2" thick aluminum can 6 feet away from a 140 decible 10,000lb thrust rocket engine and talk on a radio.
No fing way. there is no sound in space but there sure as hell is inside the suit. It would sound like you were inside a thunderbolt.
and when you watch them land you see dust i guess kicking up like crazy but then you look at the pictures of where they landed and not even a small crater or spread of dust. just perfect fine powder that makes footprints with not one spec of dust on the lander. not even on the loosely wrapped aluminum foil duct taped on the footpads.
[snip]
Yeah right.
my favorite movie on it is called A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to The Moon
its online on youtube and such places easy to find. It's a good one.

No, actually it's an infamous piece of conspiracy trash by a raving loon named Bart Sibrel. Try some information by real engineers:

Noisy engine

Quote:We should hear the lunar module's descent engine firing in the radio transmissions during the landing.

When firing in a vacuum most rocket engines are silent. Even the large SPS engine on the service module was not audible from the command module. This is because the noise from a rocket engine is not really coming from the engine, but from the effect of the exhaust on the surrounding atmosphere. It's the shock wave of the supersonic exhaust gases colliding with the air near the engine nozzle. If there's no atmosphere, you shouldn't expect to hear a loud sustained sound.

But you can expect to hear an ignition transient. The space shuttle astronauts report hearing bangs and pops as the steering jets work. This is a noise produced when the rockets first ignite. When they're running smoothly, they run silently.

Astronauts report feeling gentle vibrations through the structure of their spacecraft as the engines fire. The rush of exhaust products through the throat of the engine would produce some flow noise that would be transmitted through the engine mounts to the frame of the spacecraft. But this doesn't necessarily produce audible sounds in the cabin.

Consider also that the microphones used in aerospace for pilots and crew are built to operate in a noisy environment. You have to speak very close to the microphone in order for the sound to be picked up. The microphone helps cut cabin noise in aircraft. So even if the engines were to make a sound, it's very unlikely that the microphones would pick them up. Astronaut Bill Anders called his microphone a "tonsil mike" because he quipped that you had to practically shove it down your throat to make it work.

And the lack of a blast crater? Again, not a mystery (other than why you would expect a crater at all; VTOL aircraft here on Earth routinely produce thrusts ten times that of the LM descent engine without producing blast craters).

Quote:The conspiracists seem disappointed that a more dramatic result was not produced. Unfortunately this is what we expect to see under the lunar module. The exhaust plume is simply not powerful enough to dig holes in the tightly-packed regolith.

As for the lack of lunar dust around the LM, it's quite simple. The descent engine blew what there was of it away, and since there's no air to constrain its movements, the particles followed parabolic arcs instead of swirling around.

An eight-page dissection of Sibrel's opus can be found here.

(December 31, 2014 at 12:11 am)Charles Xavier Wrote: My big problem with the moon landing is I am an audio engineer and I cannot believe for one second that they could sit in a 1/2" thick aluminum can 6 feet away from a 140 decible 10,000lb thrust rocket engine and talk on a radio.
No fing way. there is no sound in space but there sure as hell is inside the suit. It would sound like you were inside a thunderbolt.
and when you watch them land you see dust i guess kicking up like crazy but then you look at the pictures of where they landed and not even a small crater or spread of dust. just perfect fine powder that makes footprints with not one spec of dust on the lander. not even on the loosely wrapped aluminum foil duct taped on the footpads.
[snip]
Yeah right.
my favorite movie on it is called A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to The Moon
its online on youtube and such places easy to find. It's a good one.

So what you are saying is that this video of two people having a conversation in the cockpit of an F16 in the atmosphere in afterburner is impossible because the 23,000 lb thrust engine would be too loud?

yeah i saw that Astronauts gone wild video lol
That guy has balls the size of watermelons man

But it is more than him. there is some other pretty merfed up stuff about it i can guess you will already have a link to counter it so i won't bother to mention any of it but did you ever watch A Funny thing Happened on The Way to The Moon?
It is real good.

---

(December 31, 2014 at 12:51 am)popeyespappy Wrote: So what you are saying is that this video of two people having a conversation in the cockpit of an F16 in in the atmosphere in afterburner is impossible because because the 23,000 lb thrust engine would be too loud?

nah man I am saying 3 guys in a 1/2" aluminum can made in the 1960's literally sitting on top of a flaming rocket engine.
A jet wouldn't vibrate the same way as there is much dampening and isolation of the vibrations between the pilot and the source.
Put the jet engine right behind the pilots back in a one piece 1/2" think aluminum shell and try that radio again. It isn't even discernable in the audio as they land.

You didn't see my post, did you?

And Sibrel's video has all the credibility of Loose Change, Zeitgeist and Expelled (ie none at all).

I don't believe they ever went to the moon, but that
is my opinion.

Regarding noisy rockets and microphones: Tankers in WWII used throat mikes, sound went almost directly from the vocal cords to the mike. Communication above the sounds of unmuffled tank engines and combat sounds was very clear. A sound engineer would know this.

So, do you these conspiracies typically doubt all of the moon landings, or simply Apollo 11?