• Next ODT Gun Show - Nov 16, 2024! - Click here for info

Wow! With an open mind watch these videos. Landed on the moon or a huge fake and no country has ever landed on the moon?

Moon landing faked or real

  • Real

    Votes: 41 59.4%
  • Fake

    Votes: 28 40.6%

  • Total voters
    69
Is NASA not a captured regulatory system with a high profit motive? 200+ billion for the past 10 years is pretty big sum of money albeit not like coronu. I agree with the laws of physics. They are laws and not theories. Back to my first point I'm simply at the place of anything I'm told from the mainstream narrative which is handed down from Government is the opposite of true most of the time. I can't believe anything that they say and that is very sad.

I wouldn't describe it like that, and in the 1950s and 1960s, during the development of the space program...not at all.

The technology used for the moon program was being designed in house, by engineers working for the government, tested by government employed military pilots. Outside firms like GE, Boeing, etc., got a piece of that pie if NASA thought one of those firm could lend manufacturing value. But it was to NASA specs for a lowest bid. The manufacturers were not calling the shots.

That's a wildly different model than today's Big Pharma biz. FDA acts as a quasi science/business regulatory agency, with a healthy dose of corporate nepotism (e.g., former FDA serving on Big Pharma boards). Big Pharma does the R&D, and their army of lobbyists, marketing and PR teams descend on both the FDA and congress critters to tilt the regulatory process in their favor. Consider Oxycontin: The regulator at the FDA who approved that little pill version of the atomic bomb ended up at a cushy job at Purdue Pharma within a year or two of approval. Crony capitalism at its finest. In the case of the vaccines, CDC and NIH, public health agencies who are supposed to concern themselves with scientific reality, somehow got in the boat with Big Pharma, the FDA, and were rowing just as hard, if not harder.

While I don't doubt there were probably a few back door deals done at NASA in the 1960s, it was much less prominent than it is today.
 
The earth is spinning at 1000+ miles per hour. It's going around the sun at 66,600 mph and the solar systemis orbiting the milky way at around 400,000 mph. Even with the stars being anywhere from a couple light years to a couple hundred I would think we would see stars at a different place then our ancestors from early records.

Two things:

1) There is known variability. Polaris (aka, the north star), does have variable position, it's just not very much relative to the earth, because it's spinning along with us in the same galaxy, and...

2) You also have to remember you are seeing the different stars where they were hundreds, thousands, or even more years ago. Polaris is over 300 light years away, so you are seeing where it was over 300 years ago. That's about 1.5 quadrillion miles away. It's movement is so small relative to the distance the light travels, it's impossible to perceive any difference in position relative to other stars with the human eye or even a really good telescope.
 
You normies think you know how far away stars are :lol:

GCpRPm7W4AI1liM.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom