Of course not… that would ruin a good theory.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 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?
- Thread starter testdepth
- Start date
I have repeatedly told my daughters through the years that when I get to chat with God in Heaven after I pass into Glory, I want to know:
1. Who killed JFK ?
2. What happened to Jimmy Hoffa ?
3. Did the USA really land on the moon in 1969 ?
The answers will then sustain me forever. Thanks.
1. Who killed JFK ?
2. What happened to Jimmy Hoffa ?
3. Did the USA really land on the moon in 1969 ?
The answers will then sustain me forever. Thanks.
Riddle me this. With the Law of Inverse Squared, how bright the full moon is that once you actually are on it wouldn't it blind you? I'm genuinely ignorant and would like to see if y'all could explain it to a layman. I don't know if any if y'all have experienced this but there's plenty of times when it's kinda cool outside and there isn't a breeze and the moon is full in the shade it is warmer and when you step into the light it gets noticeably cooler.
Some other counter arguments come to mind:
1) The 'tuber claims the computing power was so lame in comparison to what we have today. Certainly true. But the calculations for moon travel and landing are algebra and geometry, and the variables are very limited. In the mid-1940s, we were using mechanical computers to calculate torpedo and artillery trajectories, and those machines worked fast enough, in the hands of relatively unskilled labor (high school graduates, not degreed engineers), to be used in the stress of combat, less than a minute after spotting a target. The still relatively primitive computers of the 1960 were millions of times more powerful than those early, mechanical computers.
2) That NASA did this on the first attempt: The crews of Gemini, Mercury, and the early Apollo missions might bristle a bit at that characterization. Apollo 10 was a dress rehearsal that did everything except land.
3) If it's fake, after Apollo 11, why do it again another half dozen times? More people, more discoverable falsehoods. If it was fake, and you wanted to cement the idea, maybe you do it a 2nd or 3rd time and stop. Instead, they kept going until somebody said, "too expensive, not enough ROI".
1) The 'tuber claims the computing power was so lame in comparison to what we have today. Certainly true. But the calculations for moon travel and landing are algebra and geometry, and the variables are very limited. In the mid-1940s, we were using mechanical computers to calculate torpedo and artillery trajectories, and those machines worked fast enough, in the hands of relatively unskilled labor (high school graduates, not degreed engineers), to be used in the stress of combat, less than a minute after spotting a target. The still relatively primitive computers of the 1960 were millions of times more powerful than those early, mechanical computers.
2) That NASA did this on the first attempt: The crews of Gemini, Mercury, and the early Apollo missions might bristle a bit at that characterization. Apollo 10 was a dress rehearsal that did everything except land.
3) If it's fake, after Apollo 11, why do it again another half dozen times? More people, more discoverable falsehoods. If it was fake, and you wanted to cement the idea, maybe you do it a 2nd or 3rd time and stop. Instead, they kept going until somebody said, "too expensive, not enough ROI".
There is a starting point in that equation. If the intensity of light was bright enough to blind at it's source (reflection of sunlight at the surface of the moon) then, yes, it would be an issue. But just because you have a perception of the intensity anywhere along the curve, doesn't automatically mean the intensity, at its starting point, would cause blindness.
A similar application of the same law would be earth's gravity: You move away from the earth, and the gravity diminishes by the same law. But that doesn't mean Earth's gravity is enough to crush you when you are standing on the surface.
That first video about the shadow being the only solid evidence is about as convincing as the flat earther evidence arguments. Not to mention it's been debunked plenty of times and the 90 degree shadow thing can be recreated on earth to show it. They usually come from people who watch something online and think it's all the proof they need.
I'm always skeptical of the government, but some of these "evidence" videos in this thread are pretty laughable, especially the annoying cheese head guy. That's your guy you're going with?
The biggest issue I have with saying it's fake, is the hundreds and thousands of people who were involved with the moon landing projects. They all kept the fake landing a secret? And Russia was able to do the same thing and all their people involved kept it a secret too? All those folks involved in faking it in a studio in the USA and Russia were able to keep it under wraps all these years?
Not to mention the guy in the deathbed confession video has absolutely zero evidence to back up his claim other than, my dad told me this and he had insider info.
I'm always skeptical of the government, but some of these "evidence" videos in this thread are pretty laughable, especially the annoying cheese head guy. That's your guy you're going with?
The biggest issue I have with saying it's fake, is the hundreds and thousands of people who were involved with the moon landing projects. They all kept the fake landing a secret? And Russia was able to do the same thing and all their people involved kept it a secret too? All those folks involved in faking it in a studio in the USA and Russia were able to keep it under wraps all these years?
Not to mention the guy in the deathbed confession video has absolutely zero evidence to back up his claim other than, my dad told me this and he had insider info.
Well, thanks, Debbie Downer.That first video about the shadow being the only solid evidence is about as convincing as the flat earther evidence arguments. Not to mention it's been debunked plenty of times and the 90 degree shadow thing can be recreated on earth to show it. They usually come from people who watch something online and think it's all the proof they need.
I'm always skeptical of the government, but some of these "evidence" videos in this thread are pretty laughable, especially the annoying cheese head guy. That's your guy you're going with?
The biggest issue I have with saying it's fake, is the hundreds and thousands of people who were involved with the moon landing projects. They all kept the fake landing a secret? And Russia was able to do the same thing and all their people involved kept it a secret too? All those folks involved in faking it in a studio in the USA and Russia were able to keep it under wraps all these years?
Not to mention the guy in the deathbed confession video has absolutely zero evidence to back up his claim other than, my dad told me this and he had insider info.
Thats because it was filmed on earth in the first place......
The point is, it debunks the guys whole argument that it "doesn't happen on earth" because all shadows run parallel. He literally says that in his video. But the fact of the matter is yes it can and does. So in other words, having that as his only evidence makes his argument weak.Thats because it was filmed on earth in the first place......
But, ‘’weak’’ does not necessarily mean ‘’invalid’’.
