Moon HOAX CONSPIRACY - LEM HATCH TOO SMALL! BEST DOCUMENTARY IS 1 OF OLDEST DOCUMENTARIES | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76060539 United States 07/10/2020 03:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Look at you all. Beating a dead horse. Quoting: JoeNobHead Making claims none of you can support, either way. There's a shit ton of data, showing we went, yet there is very little saying we didn't. But that's none of my business. I deal in facts, data. Tell me, how do you fake CGI in 1969? Was it possible? No. Computer technology would show you that for sure, but that's none of my business right? Or is it. I've been involved in computers since 1986. Visual basic was the best there was. Yet, could it fake a moon mission? NO... Deny all you want. the data is there. Let me ask you all. Have you looked at the source files? Or are you of the mind, NASA is faking it all, even data from BEFORE the moon missions? Search your ass off, and prove me or NASA wrong? The data goes back before Apollo, it was a concerted effort. Built upon many many missions before it. Do you have an open mind or not? Are you willing to look at the accumulated data or not? [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] The surface photography was created using a technique known as rear screen projection The backgrounds were BLACK AND WHITE stills taken by Pioneer probes that just conveniently happened to land feet from the Apollo "Landing sites" These images were projected on a screen made of a material called scotchlite which was always in the background. In the NASA photo records, you will see panaramas with no lander or moon buggy in them and such. The foreground was a stage set and utilized PORTLAND CEMENT to simulate "moon dust". The company that made the cameras was Hassleblad, and their best engineer said the photos were fakes , all photos had depth of field anomalies and showed multiple lighting sources,. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76060539 United States 07/10/2020 03:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you want to know for sure the missions were faked look at the biometric data for missions 7-17. You will see the rate of exposure of the craft and the astronauts to radiation with Low Earth orbital Apollo missions that never left Low Earth orbit are essentially equal to those of "Lunar landing" missions. This is simply not possible, no matter how lucky they got. To believe we landed 12 men on the moon in 1969-1972 without a single loss of life or serious injury is one of the most absurd and unintelligent ideas I have ever encountered. It isn't possible today, and it wasn't then either. We are 20-30 years out from a successful manned landing. I am convinced of one thing though, the average american is so dumbed down he will believe anything he is told. |
JimmyBones
User ID: 5313744 United States 07/10/2020 03:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you want to know for sure the missions were faked look at the biometric data for missions 7-17. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 You will see the rate of exposure of the craft and the astronauts to radiation with Low Earth orbital Apollo missions that never left Low Earth orbit are essentially equal to those of "Lunar landing" missions. This is simply not possible, no matter how lucky they got. To believe we landed 12 men on the moon in 1969-1972 without a single loss of life or serious injury is one of the most absurd and unintelligent ideas I have ever encountered. It isn't possible today, and it wasn't then either. We are 20-30 years out from a successful manned landing. I am convinced of one thing though, the average american is so dumbed down he will believe anything he is told. |
GodIsGreat
User ID: 73646761 United States 07/10/2020 04:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If the whites continued their pattern as they went out into space it would be to kill everything that got in their way and conquor the natural order. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79087800 and the blacks would say space is racist and demand it be demolished. Not a single one of the astronauts of the sixties and seventies was black. It baffles me why since they are physically and in many cases intellectually superior to whites. I think there has been two or three since. You are incorrect sir? Ronald McNair was an astronaut in the 70's and 80's. He died during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73206899 United Kingdom 07/10/2020 04:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
lechmo
User ID: 77108437 United States 07/10/2020 04:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I WATCHED the moon "mission" with my brothers, father & mother, LIVE on TV in July of 1969. We were all passed out in our den when my dad woke us up near 4am to tell us to watch as Neil Armstrong (allegedly) took the first steps. There was no one in the world MORE PROUD than myself & my family & nearly every family in America also watching. I wrote NASA a letter asking for the 'Moon Photos' they provided for free to school children (plus p&h, naturally). I hung those photo posters all over my room, alongside my National Geographic full Blow-Up posters of the moon and the maps of the moon. There is NO ONE ON EARTH WHO DRANK THE KOOLAID ON THIS STORY MORE THAN ME. So please, no that it took MANY MANY YEARS for my to buy "that B.S. that we did not go to the Moon", as i would snap at every single conspiracy theorist who came down the pike....UNTIL I started to do my own, independent reasearch, as you all should do, especially those WHO NEVER QUESTION THE OFFICIAL STORY. Let me ask you this... WHAT ARE THE PROBABLITIES OF NASA JUST HAPPENING TO LOSE ALL THE VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM THE APOLLO 11 MISSION? That is what they are telling people for decades now... THEY LOST ALL THE FRIGGIN FOOTAGE. Ok, if that is credible, what if they told you they just HAPPENED TO LOSE ALL OF THE FRIGGIN SCHEMATICS FOR THE L.E.M. spacecraft, the moon lander? Starting to sound funny? What about the moon rocks which were tested and were found to be ALL FROM EARTH? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1897079 4am? Armstrong took his first steps at 2:56 UTC which would be 10:56 pm Eastern or as early as 7:56 pm on the west coast. So you started your story with a lie. It is also a lie that all the footage from Apollo 11 is lost. We have copies of all the footage and all that is lost is the original video piggybacked on the telemetry tapes from the EVAs only. That is likely because the tapes were written over when Memorex had a tape shortage in the 70's and NASA was then faced with the choice of reusing tapes they had copies of or not collecting data from ongoing missions and probes. The schematics for the LM are not lost either. NASA does not own them as they didn't build it. Grumman has the schematics. No rocks have been found to be from Earth. On the contrary they have been found to have been formed in low gravity, exposed to millions of years of cosmic rays, and have never been in contact with liquid water. Perhaps you're thinking of the rock in the netherlands? It was not given by NASA. NASA didn't give out any rocks at all in 1969. At best it was given by the US ambassador to the former prime minister. But even that can't be proven. All that is known for sure is it was found in his estate after his death and his family ASSUMED it was a Moon rock. LOL at Collier claiming they couldn't fit through the LM hatch when there are pics and videos showing them doing just that. Apollo's path DID take them around the thickest parts of the belts. The recent NASA video is specifically talking about testing the electronics of the new craft which are more sensitive than Apollo's. The path around the belts is also not available for interplanetary trips. Funny how NASA claims the Van Allen Belts were not a problem for the Apollo astronauts IN 1969-72 -- they went through them about 7 times. Yet as recently as 2012, NASA spent a millions of dollars to build & send a probe to study the Van Allen Belts. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 62070845 There were 9 trips there and back. And again, their trajectory took them around the thickest parts of the belts. But thanks for proving that hoaxies know the least about the subject. I grew up on Mather AFB in Sacramento, about 2 miles away where McDonnell Douglas built and static tested the Saturn V third stage engines. I remember feeling the ground shake when they fired those engines and this was the third stage, not first stage of Saturn V rocket. Then they'd transport it across to the flight line at Mather AFB and load it into a "Super Guppy" plane for its flight to Cape Canaveral. Another 5 miles away was Aerojet, where they manufactured the LEM and Command Module thrusters. Afters I graduated in the mid 1980's, I worked with some Aerospace Engineers and Technicians who previously worked at both of those facilities. All of them were proud of what they achieved as a team and what we achieved as a nation. Anyone who believes the Apollo moon landings were faked are the same type of people who believe the Earth is flat. On a side note, I heard rumors of a secret underground facility at this same McDonnell Douglas facility. So I asked one of the Engineers who worked there about it. He told me that certain areas of the facility were off-limits to him (he had TS clearance). Him and co-worker were walking during lunchtime one day and accidentally wandered into one of the off-limits areas. He saw ventilation pipes sticking out of the ground. When he got back, he was called to his managers office, where he was verbally reprimanded him. Then his manager did something that really freaked him out. The manager told him about the conversation that him and his coworker were discussing. He said there was no one else around but him and his coworker. Since this facility was above his TS clearance, it was rumored to have been staffed for developing black budgeted space program technologies. Ring any bells (Solar Warden)? Edit: Watched the video. Note the astronaut aboard the ISS said, "We can't go beyond 230 miles" in PRESENT TENSE. In other words, we don't currently have the capability to place crewed flights beyond that limit. That is what ORION project will accomplish. To get crewed flights beyond low earth orbit once again. This includes the Earth's moon, asteroids or Mars. And you are a fucking retard!!!!! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78351961 United States 07/10/2020 04:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79126658 United Kingdom 07/10/2020 05:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I deal in facts, data. Tell me, how do you fake CGI in 1969? Was it possible? No. Computer technology would show you that for sure, but that's none of my business right? Or is it. Quoting: JoeNobHead I've been involved in computers since 1986. Visual basic was the best there was. Yet, could it fake a moon mission? NO... Don't talk shite man. You where not at the cutting edge of advanced (secret) technology in 1986, just as far removed as we all currently are and for certain you can't ascertain what was or was not possible in 1969 based on playing pong in 1986. Get the fuck outta here. Good viewing for open minds..... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77582313 South Korea 07/11/2020 10:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78720908 New Zealand 07/14/2020 03:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Look at you all. Beating a dead horse. Quoting: JoeNobHead Making claims none of you can support, either way. There's a shit ton of data, showing we went, yet there is very little saying we didn't. But that's none of my business. I deal in facts, data. Tell me, how do you fake CGI in 1969? Was it possible? No. Computer technology would show you that for sure, but that's none of my business right? Or is it. I've been involved in computers since 1986. Visual basic was the best there was. Yet, could it fake a moon mission? NO... Deny all you want. the data is there. Let me ask you all. Have you looked at the source files? Or are you of the mind, NASA is faking it all, even data from BEFORE the moon missions? Search your ass off, and prove me or NASA wrong? The data goes back before Apollo, it was a concerted effort. Built upon many many missions before it. Do you have an open mind or not? Are you willing to look at the accumulated data or not? [link to ntrs.nasa.gov (secure)] The surface photography was created using a technique known as rear screen projection The backgrounds were BLACK AND WHITE stills taken by Pioneer probes that just conveniently happened to land feet from the Apollo "Landing sites" These images were projected on a screen made of a material called scotchlite which was always in the background. In the NASA photo records, you will see panaramas with no lander or moon buggy in them and such. The foreground was a stage set and utilized PORTLAND CEMENT to simulate "moon dust". The company that made the cameras was Hassleblad, and their best engineer said the photos were fakes , all photos had depth of field anomalies and showed multiple lighting sources,. you have it all wrong, its called front screen projection and stanley k perfected it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78784896 United States 07/14/2020 03:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78212539 United States 07/15/2020 03:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Beast love should be legal, FC
User ID: 76260827 Netherlands 07/15/2020 06:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | They had a fixed lens facing forward as it was mounted on their suits. Did they have to disconnect the Hasselblad camera, point at the ground and arbitrarily HOPE that the photo would come out in perfect focus? Without having to focus on any footprint? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 There's such a thing as Field of Depth. After practicing with these cameras for months it's not hard to figure out which presets to use for which distance. Back in the day, on here, there was a post about that camera and how one of the directors of the company saying that the film in it would have melted or froze on the lunar surface. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 Garbled and bullshit. PET has a melting point above 200C. PET is a solid, IOW is already frozen. The film NEVER touched the lunar surface. By that metric you wouldn't be able to prove that you exist. Quoting: HD, FCD This is an epistemological issue. Since it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something wasn't faked with unknown means it is always the claimant of fakery who has the burden of proof. If this wasn't the case we'd live in a permanent state of uncertainty about everything and wouldn't be able to function. I can prove I exist to anyone with eyes. Not by hoaxie "standards" of evidence. What you CANNOT do is show me one piece of evidence Apollyon landed men on the moon that I cannot INSTANTLY debunk as nonsense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 People have CLAIMED that for decades. People have FAILED to do so for decades. All they do is handwave, or turn hysterically blind. ALSEP DATA. Ther est of what you wrote is what you do, cast doubt on obvious reality and misrepresent what I said. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 What hoaxies consider "obvious reality" is just a collection of lies, insanities, and brainfarts. Not a single actual fact between the lot of 'em. I say there is no way to predict what level of radiation in any particular latitude at any time in the future, AND I AM RIGHT. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Proof by assertion is just that, a claim not supported by any evidence. And what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed. Determining the lifespan of satelites involves AVERAGE flux and energy levels. Living things are no shielded machines. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Living things can recuperate from minor damage, machines can not. This is a lie. No this is proof that hoaxies are gullible sheep who believe the lies told by hoaxmongers without EVER applying their brain. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79149829 Australia 07/15/2020 06:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | They had a fixed lens facing forward as it was mounted on their suits. Did they have to disconnect the Hasselblad camera, point at the ground and arbitrarily HOPE that the photo would come out in perfect focus? Without having to focus on any footprint? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 There's such a thing as Field of Depth. After practicing with these cameras for months it's not hard to figure out which presets to use for which distance. Back in the day, on here, there was a post about that camera and how one of the directors of the company saying that the film in it would have melted or froze on the lunar surface. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 Garbled and bullshit. PET has a melting point above 200C. PET is a solid, IOW is already frozen. The film NEVER touched the lunar surface. By that metric you wouldn't be able to prove that you exist. Quoting: HD, FCD This is an epistemological issue. Since it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something wasn't faked with unknown means it is always the claimant of fakery who has the burden of proof. If this wasn't the case we'd live in a permanent state of uncertainty about everything and wouldn't be able to function. I can prove I exist to anyone with eyes. Not by hoaxie "standards" of evidence. What you CANNOT do is show me one piece of evidence Apollyon landed men on the moon that I cannot INSTANTLY debunk as nonsense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 People have CLAIMED that for decades. People have FAILED to do so for decades. All they do is handwave, or turn hysterically blind. ALSEP DATA. Ther est of what you wrote is what you do, cast doubt on obvious reality and misrepresent what I said. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 What hoaxies consider "obvious reality" is just a collection of lies, insanities, and brainfarts. Not a single actual fact between the lot of 'em. I say there is no way to predict what level of radiation in any particular latitude at any time in the future, AND I AM RIGHT. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Proof by assertion is just that, a claim not supported by any evidence. And what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed. Determining the lifespan of satelites involves AVERAGE flux and energy levels. Living things are no shielded machines. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Living things can recuperate from minor damage, machines can not. This is a lie. No this is proof that hoaxies are gullible sheep who believe the lies told by hoaxmongers without EVER applying their brain. Blah! Blah...blah, blah, blah, blah! Blah, blah...blah, blah, blah, so blah. |
Beast love should be legal, FC
User ID: 76260827 Netherlands 07/15/2020 06:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The surface photography was created using a technique known as rear screen projection Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 The backgrounds were BLACK AND WHITE stills taken by Pioneer probes that just conveniently happened to land feet from the Apollo "Landing sites" These images were projected on a screen made of a material called scotchlite which was always in the background. In the NASA photo records, you will see panaramas with no lander or moon buggy in them and such. The foreground was a stage set and utilized PORTLAND CEMENT to simulate "moon dust". This is a CLAIM. Your job: prove it is true. The company that made the cameras was Hassleblad, and their best engineer said the photos were fakes Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 No, he didn't. , all photos had depth of field anomalies and showed multiple lighting sources,. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 More claims. This whole Burden of Proof thing seems to be a mystery to hoaxies. If you want to know for sure the missions were faked look at the biometric data for missions 7-17. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 You will see the rate of exposure of the craft and the astronauts to radiation with Low Earth orbital Apollo missions that never left Low Earth orbit are essentially equal to those of "Lunar landing" missions. Nope. Just another lie. To believe we landed 12 men on the moon in 1969-1972 without a single loss of life or serious injury is one of the most absurd and unintelligent ideas I have ever encountered. It isn't possible today, and it wasn't then either. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Argument from probability. Without even having calculated any odds. IOW, yet another asspul. I am convinced of one thing though, the average american is so dumbed down he will believe anything he is told. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Check your nearest mirror for the poster boy. you have it all wrong, its called front screen projection and stanley k perfected it. Quoting: NZ Coward 78720908 For imaginary values for "perfected." Translated from hoaxie: "I got nuthin'." Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78125731 United States 07/15/2020 06:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | They had a fixed lens facing forward as it was mounted on their suits. Did they have to disconnect the Hasselblad camera, point at the ground and arbitrarily HOPE that the photo would come out in perfect focus? Without having to focus on any footprint? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 There's such a thing as Field of Depth. After practicing with these cameras for months it's not hard to figure out which presets to use for which distance. Back in the day, on here, there was a post about that camera and how one of the directors of the company saying that the film in it would have melted or froze on the lunar surface. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77798936 Garbled and bullshit. PET has a melting point above 200C. PET is a solid, IOW is already frozen. The film NEVER touched the lunar surface. By that metric you wouldn't be able to prove that you exist. Quoting: HD, FCD This is an epistemological issue. Since it is impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something wasn't faked with unknown means it is always the claimant of fakery who has the burden of proof. If this wasn't the case we'd live in a permanent state of uncertainty about everything and wouldn't be able to function. I can prove I exist to anyone with eyes. Not by hoaxie "standards" of evidence. What you CANNOT do is show me one piece of evidence Apollyon landed men on the moon that I cannot INSTANTLY debunk as nonsense. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 People have CLAIMED that for decades. People have FAILED to do so for decades. All they do is handwave, or turn hysterically blind. ALSEP DATA. Ther est of what you wrote is what you do, cast doubt on obvious reality and misrepresent what I said. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 What hoaxies consider "obvious reality" is just a collection of lies, insanities, and brainfarts. Not a single actual fact between the lot of 'em. I say there is no way to predict what level of radiation in any particular latitude at any time in the future, AND I AM RIGHT. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Proof by assertion is just that, a claim not supported by any evidence. And what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are dismissed. Determining the lifespan of satelites involves AVERAGE flux and energy levels. Living things are no shielded machines. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 Living things can recuperate from minor damage, machines can not. This is a lie. No this is proof that hoaxies are gullible sheep who believe the lies told by hoaxmongers without EVER applying their brain. Blah! Blah...blah, blah, blah, blah! Blah, blah...blah, blah, blah, so blah. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79134940 Canada 07/15/2020 07:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you don’t understand momentum conservation law. Stfu and learn. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78072371 Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia). The external force acting on the gas To overcome its inertia is pressure gradient force. Not the rocket. [link to www.shodor.org (secure)] Simply saying learn conservation of momentum is not an argument. Since it is pressure gradient force moving the gases out of the rocket, the rocket doesn’t apply force and there is no opposite force on the rocket. The gases that move out of the rocket push off the atmosphere moving the rocket forward. It is the same principal of a propellers. It simply can work with an atmosphere to push off of Rockets don’t work in space |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78116466 United States 07/15/2020 01:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77781367 United States 08/17/2020 04:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you want to know for sure the missions were faked look at the biometric data for missions 7-17. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76060539 You will see the rate of exposure of the craft and the astronauts to radiation with Low Earth orbital Apollo missions that never left Low Earth orbit are essentially equal to those of "Lunar landing" missions. This is simply not possible, no matter how lucky they got. To believe we landed 12 men on the moon in 1969-1972 without a single loss of life or serious injury is one of the most absurd and unintelligent ideas I have ever encountered. It isn't possible today, and it wasn't then either. We are 20-30 years out from a successful manned landing. I am convinced of one thing though, the average american is so dumbed down he will believe anything he is told. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76652200 08/17/2020 10:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78030538 08/17/2020 11:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32257018 United States 08/17/2020 01:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The BEST video/documentary on the subject, written & [low budget] produced by an actual scientific investigative journalist (who was later found dead, mysteriously) is this one. He interviewed the friggin DIRECTOR of the Apollo "mission", the man responsible for training the astro-NOT$ on the usage of the L.E.M. moon lander...who goes on to look into the camera and state that he 'never had to train the astro-not$ to actually GO THROUGH THE LEM HATCH,[LOL!!!] - which is measured in the documentary & proven that it was not possibly able to allow a fully packed astronaut to enter or exit from. [the film producer then says 'so i guess they just had to TRAVEL THE 250,000 MILES TO THEN JUST "WING IT"] Good stuff, great footage, ignore the poor-mid 90's VHS quality to this copy that someone uploaded: Quoting: VHS 1897079 You're going to piss off AsroTurd with stuff like this! |
SilverCyprus
User ID: 77123653 Canada 08/17/2020 01:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32257018 United States 08/17/2020 01:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77998793 United States 08/17/2020 01:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76658155 Romania 08/17/2020 02:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 08/17/2020 02:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Op thank you for debunking your own thread with the first post! Quoting: Louis in Richmond Have YOU actually LIDAR scanned an actual space suit and a LEM hatch to prove that a space suit will not fit through it? This man has and disproves your entire thread. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 08/17/2020 02:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If you don’t understand momentum conservation law. Stfu and learn. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78072371 Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia). The external force acting on the gas To overcome its inertia is pressure gradient force. Not the rocket. [link to www.shodor.org (secure)] Simply saying learn conservation of momentum is not an argument. Since it is pressure gradient force moving the gases out of the rocket, the rocket doesn’t apply force and there is no opposite force on the rocket. The gases that move out of the rocket push off the atmosphere moving the rocket forward. It is the same principal of a propellers. It simply can work with an atmosphere to push off of Rockets don’t work in space Wrong. |
Box
User ID: 79013628 United States 08/17/2020 02:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The documentary gets going at about 7:02 into it. He examines the L.E.M. and asks, "Where are the schematics for this project?" .. & later on asks, "Why didn't the team who CREATED THE SHIP WHICH LANDED ON THE MOON RECEIVE A NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS? (etc.)" Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1897079 Umm, probably because the Engineers who Built the rockets and Modules didn't invent any new Physics... This guy is a serious fucktard and has the mind of a child. This is where you get you "information" from huh dumbshit..... Yawnnzzzzzz Last Edited by Bix on 08/17/2020 02:48 PM Yawnnnnzzzzzzz |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78182509 Netherlands 08/17/2020 02:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Op thank you for debunking your own thread with the first post! Quoting: Louis in Richmond Have YOU actually LIDAR scanned an actual space suit and a LEM hatch to prove that a space suit will not fit through it? This man has and disproves your entire thread. [link to www.youtube.com (secure)] Two full green karma bars pushing the fake narrative... Nuff said. |