Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
YOU SAID: "If you were at the equator and 0 longitude the Earth would appear directly above you at 90 degrees."
== Depends. That's just the average. The moon wobbles by about 8 degrees. It's not 100% perfectly tidally locked.
YOU SAID: "On Apollo 17 they’re 20 degrees above hence the Earth would appear 70 degrees from the horizon . True there’s a longitude correction that would apply,"
== Yes, it's also +30 degrees off center in longitude. Mighty convenient you'd just ignore it... especially given that the longitude is the bigger number. You picked the smallest possible number intentionally, to paint your false narrative. In reality, the actual angle is greater than either the 20+ or 30+ degrees of latitude and longitude. The net angle is almost 40 degrees. Funny that you chose to only pick the 20 degree angle, when the real angle is more like 40 degrees. And, depending on where the moon was in the 8 degree wobble cycle during the mission, the angle could have been even greater (with the Earth even lower in the sky). No matter which way you spin it, sorry, but you're just plain lying when you say it's 70 degrees. You even originally said that it should be "at least 70 degrees" in the sky. The actual angle figuring longitude and latitude, and factoring in where it may have been in the 8 degree wobble cycle, was a lot closer to 45 degrees than 70 degrees.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Anyway, when you factor in the following, it's pretty clear that you're just plain wrong:
1) You got the angle dramatically wrong. The Earth is far lower than you're dishonestly representing.
2) You're looking at a cropped photo in this video that doesn't take into account the angles very well to begin with.
3) I am not sure where in the 8 degree wobble the moon was during Apollo 17, and I don't really care, but, obviously, if it was in a "favorable" stage of the wobble, that drops the Earth even lower in the sky.
4) Cernan ducked low (making the camera look upward), thus accounting for the angles even more.
5) You are clearly deluded.
YOU SAID: "Also the Earth would appear 4X bigger than what the Moon looks like to us on Earth."
== Yes. So what? Are you saying it's not? How can you tell from a cropped photo in the first place? This isn't even the original picture. And, you also need to look at the type of lens that was used, etc. You know, even on Earth, you can just change lenses and distances to relative objects, and the moon appears to change sizes in photos. Seriously, it looks bigger just by zooming more. It's really as simple as that. Cropped photos, zoomed in, zoomed out, whatever... you need to know these things before you just eyeball it and assume it's wrong.
2
-
@stevegagnon1539
Thanks for proving you didn't read/absorb anything I wrote. You're dead wrong about the angles. And, you made it very clear that you came to your conclusions about the angles first, before you even knew what the angles were. And, now, you're STILL demonstrating that you don't understand the angles. If you're not going to pay attention, and all you want to do is keep spewing conspiracy garbage, and ignore all input, there's really no point here. The actual angle was just shy of 40, not the 20 degrees or 30 degrees you asserted, then we have to accommodate the moon's wobble after that, which easily could push the angle to over 40. And, I already explained the photo was cropped, thus making you unaware of the angle, and that Cernan was bent way over, taking the photo upward. It's on video. Go watch it.
2
-
Well, you might not believe it, but, yes, it's true. The public lost interest. Armstrong and Aldrin became household names, and couldn't go out in public without being mobbed. But, Cernan and Schmitt could go to the grocery store, out to dinner, to a movie, whatever, and almost nobody even knew who they were (because the public had lost interest).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@devilsoffspring5519
Hongson ngo is referring to a famous conspiratard quote mine, in which astronaut Don Pettit said that we lost the technology. And, he also said it was "destroyed." Of course, sane people realize the context of what he meant. He simply meant that none of it exists any longer. There are no functional landers, no functional command modules, no functional Saturn V boosters, no training facilities, no launch facilities, etc. The contractors who built everything are long gone, dead, or retired. Most of the contracting companies have closed their doors, or were bought out. Most of the buildings were knocked down or retooled. In that sense, it's been "lost/destroyed." But, conspiracy nutbags don't care about context. They listen to one-line quote mines, and then assume that's all they need to know about Apollo to call it "fake."
2
-
I realize you weren't replying to me (you gave up on that, because all you ever did was duck and dodge anything I wrote, and stuck your head in the sand). But, in answer to your reply to the other guy:
"None of that is proof of an ACTUAL moon landing."
What type of evidence would you expect/accept?
"you are relying on their pics/photos/videos/man made documents/statements/radio /media/govt agencies (both domestic and international/academia/personal testimonies/so called "experts" etc."
Um, yeah. If that's not good enough, what type of evidence ever could be good enough for you? It seems like you're basically saying that there isn't even a way to have the evidence you require.
"all your info is more than capable of being rendered false/corrupted/misleading/altered/propagandized/conspiratorialized."
Sure. But, to reject all of that in favor of a "hoax," you have to acknowledge that such a "hoax" would require the cooperation of numerous countries (including enemy countries), tens of thousands of people, and would need to persist decade after decade as administrations come and go. Like, for example, a few months ago, as he outlined, India released its images from their lunar orbiter, showing Apollo's landers on the moon, exactly in the same places as Arizona State University's LRO camera indicated, and China's orbiter indicated, and Japan's orbiter indicated. Could India have decided to participate in "the hoax" also? Well, ok, sure. But, this just adds more and more and more people/countries that would need to participate. Why would they do this, 50+ years later? Wouldn't a lot of those countries love to show it was fake, if they could?
"the moon landing is a cult following"
Huh? Is this a joke? There are 72 space agencies on the planet, staffed directly and indirectly with the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering for manned or unmanned space flight, none of which have ever said a single word like you're saying. And, you think THAT is the cult, and you're not part of the "cult" here?
"that you can easily come out of if you can comprehend deception and things that can be altered/corrupted"
Again, what evidence would you even accept and expect? If dozens of countries and tens of thousands of people over decades of time, all confirming Apollo, in several different ways, isn't enough for you, what ever could be enough for you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) Musk is only serious about 1/2 of his statements, and only correct about 1/20th of them. How he managed to get a single spacecraft in orbit is beyond me. And, I have no idea why Tesla's stock price is high enough for them to buy every auto manufacturer on the planet. It's a cult. And, basically, they'd need to make about $2 million profit on each car they sell in order to justify the stock price. I don't know if I should blame Musk for his false inflation and deceptive tactics to boost the stock prices, or if I should blame investors for ever thinking a non-profitable electric car company is worth a trillion dollars. But, anyway, that aside, the underlying point is that Musk's Mars visions are nothing but science fiction garbage. His plans CANNOT work in practicality. Starship has no hope of doing what he says it can for Mars missions. And, I am continuously shocked that NASA selected them for using that monstrosity as a lunar lander. But, at least it IS technically feasible to land that thing on the moon. Not exactly wise, but, at least possible. For that thing to colonize Mars with 50-100 passengers per ride? Um, no.
2) You're not going to see any moon colonies in our lifetime. Apollo was massively expensive, and could barely struggle to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Entire bases, and years of life support supplies, structures to build for planting crops, producing energy, etc., are millions of times bigger/heavier than Apollo was. The landers for Apollo barely had the payload of a little lunar car, and a few experiments, and life support for about 75 hours on the moon. If you want to build permanent colonies there, you'd be talking about hundreds of SaturnV-sized launches, just to get started. Given that Artemis was funded at $30 billion (I'm sure it'll inflate in the coming years), you'd be lucky to duplicate Apollo's limitations, let alone something bigger, let alone find congress/public willing to foot the bill for 1000x more money to build bases there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Deucemonkey 23 Herb Castro
Your perception of the Van Allen belts is an utter butchery of what Kelly Smith was saying in the video you're talking about. He merely said that they needed to test the shielding on Orion in order to be sure the computers and people would be able to function/survive in the Van Allen belts. That video was made in 2014, and yes, NASA tested Orion's shielding later that same year, and it passed the tests. Yet, still, to this day, moon hoax nutbags are still quoting that video as some sort of assault on Apollo. It's nonsense. Kelly Smith was never claiming that Apollo didn't go through the belts. He said that Orion's shielding needed to be tested. They tested Apollo's craft going through the belts on Apollo 6, unmanned, much in the same spirit, before they ever put humans through the belts. So, yes, a new craft, with new mission parameters, different computers, yes, they needed to test the shielding again. I mean, for the sake of comparison, nobody ever questions if a brand new aircraft with brand new wings needs to have those new wings tested before certifying the craft for passengers. Nobody ever says, "hey, why did you need to test the wings for the Boeing 747, when you had perfectly good wings on the WWI biplanes?" Yet, that's exactly what the conspiracy nutbags are saying about the Orion shielding, as if they should just use the exact same shielding that Apollo used 50 years earlier (different craft, different missions planned, different computers, etc.). It's insanity. Conspiracy nutbags are insane.
2
-
Esthersar,
Your dishonesty has reached new heights, which is very difficult to do, since everything you've ever posted has been a complete lie. But, here you said: "Why did they not reset any of the cameras to long exposure to be able to photograph the stars?"
I have answered this question from you in previous threads, multiple times. I told you that they DID take 125 photos of the stars that exact way, using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on a tripod mount. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, and the EXACT name of the telescope and the photos. And, here you are, 2 months later, claiming the same thing, saying that they never took the photos that I already told you they took. How low can you go? How bad is your disorder, when you feel the need to constantly lie?
2
-
Note, I particularly love the part when you quoted my own words back to me:
You wrote:
Quote: "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? " (quoting my words back to me)
Then, you replied:
Quote: "Not a list, just one. One single photo would do."
Now, the problem with this new lie of yours (among your repeated parade of lies throughout many different comment threads), is that you later claimed:
Quote: "What catalog numbers? I have not seen any catalog numbers from you."
See, the issue is that the catalog numbers I posted were in the very same message as the "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones?" quote. So, you don't get to sit here and pretend that you could see part of the message, but couldn't see the rest of it (the part with the catalog numbers).
You are merely stalling, distracting, ducking and dodging, like you normally do, throughout all of your threads. When presented with evidence, all you've EVER done is distract and dodge, switch topics, shift the goalposts, whatever. And, this is just another dishonest attempt to do the exact same thing.
They took 125 photos of the stars using the Carruthers camera, mounted to a tripod. They took some using the Hasselblads also, but, those were hand-held cameras, and taking photos of stars requires very long exposure times. This causes very blurry images, because a human cannot hold a camera steady by hand for 20-30 seconds at a time. You don't even know which mission is which, and which camera is which. I told you to look at the Carruthers ultraviolet photos. I gave you catalog numbers of those Carruthers UV photos that showed non-blurry stars. I explained why some are blurry, and some are not, because they wanted to vary the exposure times across the 125 photos, some shorter, some longer, to get a really good sampling of all types of photos (exactly like any sane person would expect). And, I seriously doubt you looked at any of them, not even the blurry ones. You probably saw some of the blurry ones from the Hasselblads at some point, and concluded all of them were blurry, contrary to the fact that I repeatedly explained that you're wrong. But, you're not honest enough to deal with any of that. You will continue to simply reject, duck, dodge, and avoid. That's all you've ever done in any thread you post in. Your mind has been made up, based on incorrect facts. Garbage in, garbage out. You ate up the garbage spewed by dishonest videos, thinking it was all valid, without lifting a finger to find out it wasn't. And, rather than being upset with the people who made those dishonest videos in the first place, you are upset with the messengers who show you why those videos are wrong. This is classic paranoid delusional behavior, and, you will lie through your teeth to defend the delusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
YOU SAID: "34:58 defying physics! leaning that far forward and they dont fall forward... How are they leaning forward in the air at that angle without falling over?"
== The rover (the camera was mounted to the rover) is on a slope, therefore everything is sloped.
YOU SAID: "that would be a good answer although if you look at the moments before its easy to see he was going downhill before."
== Ridiculous nonsense. He was skipping along the sloped surface, which is part of the reason he lost his balance in the first place. If you don't like what you see in those few seconds, why aren't you watching the entire unedited sequence instead? Why would you think you can judge this stuff from just a few seconds of video? From those 2 or 3 seconds you're referring to, you can't tell whether he's going uphill or downhill. He's just hopping, and about to fall, and then falls. Go watch the entirety of the hours upon hours of Apollo 17 videos, and then make your judgment. Don't watch 2 or 3 seconds of an astronaut falling down, then tell me that you think you know things you don't know.
YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning forward"
== Seriously? Does that even make sense to you? You think if you're going downhill, you face forward? No wonder you believe silly things. Go try it. Walk uphill, and see if you think you're leaning backward (relative to the slope of the ground). Walk downhill, and see if you think you're leaning forward (relative to the slope of the ground). Good grief. You are completely and totally BACKWARD in your understanding.
YOU SAID: "like that even more likely he would fall over."
== He DID fall over!!!!!!!!!!! What's wrong with you!?!?!?!?!?
YOU SAID: "He literally hangs for a sec before his bottom legs come forward to life him up.. at the very end of the clip he stands up straighter than the hard lean. so if he was on a slope that lean wouldnt change because the camera is still.. but I do like your answer and is still a most likely plausible answer."
== Just go watch the full original videos. Good gods. What a train wreck. You are entirely backward, and, yet, you think you understand these topics.
2
-
@KH4L0Dz
YOU SAID: "I swear i can't imagine how the people believe this this is the biggest conspiracy have ever the human being seen"
== Yet, it's been 50 years, and countless illiterate people (just like you) make these wild claims. Yet, never in history has anybody ever offered any moon conspiracy notions that can pass scientific muster. Each and every moon conspiracy claim in history has been utterly destroyed the moment it comes under scientific scrutiny.
YOU SAID: "nothing is logical in this videos I bet you, if this was true, they would have occupied the moon these days"
== Then you don't understand thermodynamics. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. It takes millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer to lift 3 or 4 people to the moon, including the craft itself, the fuel itself, a lander capable of returning to Earth, and the people inside. That hasn't changed. For example, SLS is nearly identical in size/capacity as the Saturn V was. And, the most they think they can squeeze out of Orion on top of SLS is maybe 4 people to go to the moon instead of just 3. So, you can sit there and "bet" on your ignorance until the cows come home. But, the equations to understand rocketry haven't changed in over 100 years since they were discovered/derived. The principles are the same today as they ever were. And, if you want to lift that kind of payload to the moon, it will require millions of pounds of propellant. The average person will never even be able to buy the fuel to go to the moon, let alone the craft, and everything else it takes to go there.
YOU SAID: "and we were watching this on the moon through telescopes"
== Oh, but I thought you said that "nothing is logical in this videos" (your wording)?? Yet, simultaneously, you think that telescope optics on Earth can see something like that on the moon??? Atmospheric scatter? That means nothing to you? Optical resolution? That means nothing to you either? Good grief. I mean, the mere fact that you'd make this suggestion only shows how ignorant you are. Google "optical resolution," Select the wiki page. Read the formula to calculate the size of lens you'd need to see something like this from the distance between the Earth and moon. Do the calculations yourself. In order to see something that size from this distance, with enough resolution to even know what it is, would take a lens A QUARTER MILE in diameter!!!! Given that the biggest optical grade lens ever constructed was about 5 feet across, and costed $168 million, yeah, I think we're a long way off from QUARTER MILE telescope lenses!!! Shhheeeeessssshhhh. Oh, but "nothing is logical" in the videos? Um, no, dummy. Nothing is logical about anything YOU say.
YOU SAID: "yoo dude ehat kind of facts you are talking about ?? The flag which is waving from the wind or the same recording place for every moon mission from apollo 11 to 17?"
== The flags have waved only under very specific conditions:
1) When being handled, or immediately after being handled. Did you expect them to stay stiff for some reason, if they're being handled?
2) When an astronaut passed near a flag, and the PLSS (life support) backpacks are off-gassing at the time. Yes, there were one or two times during the missions that this happened, and you can see some slight flag movement. Yes, the "wind" (extremely tiny amount) ever so slightly causes some small motion in the flags.
3) When the purge valve on the lander is opened, and the oxygen rushes over the lunar surface.
Those are the only times the flags have ever moved. None of those things require a conspiracy explanation.
YOU SAID: "Or that weird illogical for the physics movements when they stumble?"
== It's simple. The rover is on a slope, and the astronauts are on a slope. The ground looks "level" in the TV picture because the camera is mounted perpendicular with the surface. Yazzam posted a link to a video that shows this same sort of concept. Tilted ground, tilted camera. It's really that simple.
YOU SAID: "We all know how the gravity that should be on the moon but not like this !!"
== Then calculate it. What are you waiting for? Why are you on YouTube, if you think the gravity is "wrong" in these videos? You can demonstrate it via the scientific method. Calculate it. Write it up. Submit it for scientific peer review. I really don't know why you people don't do that. Instead, you just come to YouTube comments and claim it's "wrong" with absolutely no math to back you up.
YOU SAID: "He looks like he is tied with rope lol"
== Because the ground is sloped, and the camera is sloped with it. There is no rope.
YOU SAID: "dude just give me one evidence that they reached the moon surface except this kind of fake videos They did not solve the mystery of Bermuda triangle until they land on the moon lol!!"
== Sure. I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else below.
YOU SAID: "dude i just wannt you to tell me why the earth is look so small despite to the earth that bigger than the moon with 20x it should be bigger in the picture here 35:27"
== 20x, eh? Funny, I've done the math. One of my degrees is in mathematics, as a matter of fact, not that I've ever bothered to call myself a mathematician. But, you don't need to have a degree in math to be able to do the simple trigonometry to calculate it. But, yeah, the moon is about 0.5 degrees in angular size from Earth. The Earth is about 2 degrees in angular size from the moon. That's 4x the size, not 20x. And, yes, it looks pretty correct in the videos to me. But, again, this is one of the many reasons you shouldn't even bother being on YouTube, and you should be submitting your calculations via the scientific method. I always thought that 2 divided by 0.5 was 4. But, you apparently think 2 divided by 0.5 is 20. But, yeah, it's been decades since I got my degree in mathematics, and I pretty much abandoned math shortly thereafter, despite my chart-shattering aptitude for it. So, yeah, why don't you go ahead and show me how you get to the conclusion that 2 / 0.5 = 20? I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it if you can demonstrate it.
2
-
@KH4L0Dz
Here's that cut-n-paste I promised from the last posted message:
== One example out of hundreds of possible examples: the radio telescopes, the radar tracking, and radio communications devices. For example, dozens of countries (including enemy countries) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes. Like, the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11. The plan was to stay in orbit around the moon until Apollo 11 got there, wait for the astronauts to land, then send Luna 15 down to the lunar surface while the astronauts were still there, then robotically grab some lunar samples, then race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples in history. Unfortunately for them, it was a very rushed mission, and they ended up making some mistakes and crashing it into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lunar surface. But, the fact remains, the Soviets tracked both Apollo 11 and their Luna 15 mission, using radar and radio telescopes. Numerous countries did this also. It wasn't just the Soviets and the USA doing the tracking. Spain. Australia. Madagascar. Canary Islands. Ascension Island. Wales. Britain. Turks & Caicos. Bahamas. Guam. The list goes on and on. All of those countries, and more, used their radar and/or radio telescopes to track the Apollo missions.
2
-
@xpez9694
YOU SAID: "I see you writing a lengthy comments to everyone else as well."
== TRANSLATION: "I have the attention span of a dead chipmunk. So, if you can't explain rocketry, and if you can't explain a 10 year long program to reach the moon, in 3 sentences or less, I'm not going to read it, and it's fake."
YOU SAID: "God only knows what kind of misquoting you are doing to make yourself seem superior to everyone."
== Dummy, I have only quoted MYSELF!!!! I cut-n-pasted MY OWN words. Someone else recently asked the same sort of questions you asked, so, I went there, grabbed a few lines that ***I WROTE***, and pasted them here. How can I possibly "misquote" MYSELF?!?! Good grief.
YOU SAID: "rockethead7 doesnt know what he is talking about."
== Wait, what? You think the Earth should look 20x larger from the moon, remember? That's YOU who made that claim. Do you do the math to back that up? No, of course not. Have any one of the world's experts, staffed in any of the planet's 72 space agencies, ever noticed such a massive "mistake" that the Earth is the wrong size by a factor of 20x?? No, of course not. You're also the one who thinks you'd lean FORWARD when going down a hill, remember? Don't sit there and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. And, you know what?? It doesn't matter anyway. Every single thing I've said is correct, whether it comes from me, or comes from someone else. You can verify this stuff the exact way I outlined, and therefore it doesn't even matter if I know what I'm talking about or not. You can verify these things FOR YOURSELF (if you'd lift a finger to do the math).
2
-
@KH4L0Dz
YOU SAID: "naaahh he didn't"
== Dummy, the stuff I wrote stands upon its own. You can't push it aside just because you don't like the person who posted it to you. All of those countries tracked Apollo missions to/from the moon with their radio telescopes and/or radar. You asked for one small piece of evidence for Apollo that doesn't depend on videos. I provided exactly what you asked for, and I could give you tons more iron clad evidence on top of that, which also doesn't require you to watch videos. You don't get to dismiss it merely because you were unaware it existed. All you've done is ask for evidence that doesn't depend on videos (while laughingly expecting the answer to be "there is none"), then, when provided the exact evidence you asked for, you shove it aside. I'll never understand why you dummies ask for evidence, when every single one of you conspiratards intends to ignore the evidence when you get it.
YOU SAID: "He's just a copy-and-paste taker dude"
== I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF!!!! Did you not read? I clearly said, "I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else." Get it? I had posted that same stuff recently to someone else who asked for it (then ignored it, just as you are doing), so, I copied it to this thread. And, again, you are ignoring it. Guess what, dummy? It wouldn't even matter if I had copied and pasted it from someone else. I didn't do that. I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF. But, hypothetically, if I had copied it from someone else, it's still something you can verify for yourself. All of those countries, and more, proudly say THEMSELVES that they tracked Apollo missions. A lot of those facilities are still online to this very day (upgraded electronics, of course). And, if you go there, they will tell you all by themselves that they tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. And, as I said, that's the tip of the iceberg. I can type for 30 hours, presenting evidence from sources completely outside of NASA, that confirms Apollo. You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. Now you're finding excuses to ignore it.
YOU SAID: "if you search for the truth you will find it but you don't"
== Dummy, conspiracy videos aren't "truth." If they were, they wouldn't be presenting it in conspiracy videos. The reason those conspiracy videos exist is BECAUSE they are wrong. If they were correct, they'd be presenting this stuff via the scientific method. They publish their stuff in conspiracy videos because they want to avoid the scientific scrutiny. Every single one of their claims collapses immediately under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. Every single one. Never once in the past 50 years since Apollo has anywhere EVER, from friendly or enemy countries, ever presented any of this anti-Apollo "evidence" (sigh) via any recognized science or engineering journal, and had it pass entry level scrutiny. Not once. Not one single time. So, instead, they skip the scientific method altogether, and publish straight to conspiracy videos, so that their gullible viewers can eat it up. They know their target audience will never fact-check them.
YOU SAID: "You are treating the words of the scientists as definitive"
== No, that's the OPPOSITE of the scientific method!!! Good grief!!! Have you ever even written a scientific paper? Sheeessshhhh. When you write a paper, and submit it to a journal, it doesn't matter who you are. The "words of scientists" do not matter. That's the entire point of the scientific method. It takes individual claims of scientists out of the equation, and makes testability and repeatability paramount. If you have something against Apollo, you write it up, and submit it. From there, it undergoes review, and if it passes muster, it gets published for the entire world to rebut, or accept. It doesn't matter if you're Albert Einstein, or the janitor at a nursing home, your paper undergoes the same scrutiny, and is prone to be rejected, or accepted, based on the merits of the claims themselves.
YOU SAID: "even if that lies You believe in their words as Muslim for thier words"
== I haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.
YOU SAID: "also i can't read all this newspaper you wrote with nothing convincing"
== So, you didn't read what I wrote, but, I'm wrong about what I wrote? You didn't find anything convincing in words you didn't read??? And, you're PROUD of this level of stupidity?
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, the main purpose of Apollo was as a political message to the Soviets. Remember, this stuff was funded during the times of the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis, and when people were building bomb shelters in their backyards. Basically, it was a "don't mess with us, or we'll beat you" message. That's what got it funded, and, the idea was that if we express that much technological dominance, then the Soviets wouldn't start a nuclear war that would kill millions of people. We'll never know for sure whether WWIII was prevented because of Apollo, because there's no time machine to go back and change what happened. But, yes, basically, Apollo was one of many measures the USA was taking for the purpose of preventing the cold war from turning into a hot one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@arelortal6580
I just wanted to hunt down that image that you say is "impossible" at 18:40 (from the other video). And, I was wrong. The photo wasn't taken from in front of the LM, like my last posting said. It was taken from INSIDE the LM. It's the exact same basic concept that I've outlined in my prior posting. But, it's even more hilarious. You are insisting that the LM should be in the frame... but... the photo was taken from INSIDE the LM!!!!! This is pure comic gold at this point. It's image AS17-140-21355 from the Apollo catalog. The photo was taken from inside the LM, looking out the LMP window. Yet, you expected the LM to be in frame.
This is just too funny. It really is. You have literally no concept of left/right/up/down/east/west/north/south. You can't figure out what should or shouldn't be in the frame of photos. You fail to understand simple concepts like... when mountains are miles away in the distance, yeah, they're really not going to look very different by merely moving a few hundred feet in the foreground... you don't seem to understand that the background is going to look the same, but the foreground will change when you move around... and you seem to be so single dimensional that you fail to understand that the astronauts actually traveled around in all directions, taking photos all the time. You seem to be under the impression that they only ever had the LM in front of them, and never went behind the thing, or something like that. You seem to always expect that the only photos they ever took were facing towards the LM.
Good grief. You really are one of the dumbest people around.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2