I'm like 52-48 we didn't go... Used to be because of the Van Allen belt stuff, but I learned more about how the right inclination of ascent and the dosages, etc., could be survivable. There's a lot of proof a set was used for some of the photography, but that may have just been because they couldn't GET any real transmissions from the moon, and so they wanted to get theatrical and had no other way to do it.
There are too many reasons for me to list, but my top two for not believing in the moon landing is the temperature swing
“When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).”
Show me the ac & heating unit that was used to stabilize that swing, & lets test it down here.
& how does a rocket or any thrust work in a vacuum? There is nothing to push off of, no atmospheric friction like there is here that allows things to push off & change direction. I’ve been looking for a rocket in a vacuum test for proof either way, but have only seen tests where the vacuum chamber is very small, so rockets can achieve thrust from the wall of the chamber, not a good representation of the giant vacuum of space.
NASA might be the worst of all the alphabet gangs, but the herd has been sold that they are smart honest scientists, free from all of the flaws that trap every other human with too much power.
I did see one rocket-in-a-vacuum-test on Youtube once that looked pretty convincing, but can't put my finger on it now. The thrust is against ITSELF, and the "opposite-equal-reaction" still applies. Hadn't heard about the temperature differential you've mentioned. I'll have to look into that one.
The only vacuum expirements I could find bounced off the back of the box creating a thrust.
I don’t believe the “opposite equal reaction” theory applies to motion in a vacuum without proof. There is no resistance to reflect force back & no expirement to show it is even remotely possible that I have found. They can’t even get big budget space movies to work in a way that makes any sense with what we are told.
Seems like sci fi posing as science to me. Star Trek happened to come out 3 years before the moon landing. Such interesting timing
I have seen one of his videos before. Do you see the gas bouncing off the back of the chamber & flowing back towards the source? The thrust shown does not happen without a wall behind the rocket to provide resistance. There are no chamber walls in the sci fi theories of space travel
lol...I hear ya. I remain convinced that I haven't a clue whether we went or not.
I think there’s less than 1% chance we went. It is programming propaganda
I'm like 52-48 we didn't go... Used to be because of the Van Allen belt stuff, but I learned more about how the right inclination of ascent and the dosages, etc., could be survivable. There's a lot of proof a set was used for some of the photography, but that may have just been because they couldn't GET any real transmissions from the moon, and so they wanted to get theatrical and had no other way to do it.
There are too many reasons for me to list, but my top two for not believing in the moon landing is the temperature swing
“When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius). When the sun goes down, temperatures can dip to minus 280 F (minus 173 C).”
Show me the ac & heating unit that was used to stabilize that swing, & lets test it down here.
& how does a rocket or any thrust work in a vacuum? There is nothing to push off of, no atmospheric friction like there is here that allows things to push off & change direction. I’ve been looking for a rocket in a vacuum test for proof either way, but have only seen tests where the vacuum chamber is very small, so rockets can achieve thrust from the wall of the chamber, not a good representation of the giant vacuum of space.
NASA might be the worst of all the alphabet gangs, but the herd has been sold that they are smart honest scientists, free from all of the flaws that trap every other human with too much power.
I did see one rocket-in-a-vacuum-test on Youtube once that looked pretty convincing, but can't put my finger on it now. The thrust is against ITSELF, and the "opposite-equal-reaction" still applies. Hadn't heard about the temperature differential you've mentioned. I'll have to look into that one.
I'm with ceattlestretch on this - but moon landing 100% fake - not even 1% chance!
ok, you guys...I'm now 55-45 we didn't go.
I say 1% because i know I am capable of being wrong, no matter how right I feel.
I is human 😂
The only vacuum expirements I could find bounced off the back of the box creating a thrust.
I don’t believe the “opposite equal reaction” theory applies to motion in a vacuum without proof. There is no resistance to reflect force back & no expirement to show it is even remotely possible that I have found. They can’t even get big budget space movies to work in a way that makes any sense with what we are told.
Seems like sci fi posing as science to me. Star Trek happened to come out 3 years before the moon landing. Such interesting timing
Here's a decent vid;
I have seen one of his videos before. Do you see the gas bouncing off the back of the chamber & flowing back towards the source? The thrust shown does not happen without a wall behind the rocket to provide resistance. There are no chamber walls in the sci fi theories of space travel