>>536009606>What are vibrations from the bouncing ape being transferred through the ground to the pole and the flag for 500, Alex?
This was fake and gay freemason bullshit.
>>536012154the moon dust trajectories debunk your nonsensehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3Oi9JWsyM
>>536009606
>>536009606There's a better video showing a lander at close range and there's an opened equipment satchel or something similar with the flap just waving in the breeze.
>>536012489a breeze indoors on a set? tell us more Dr. Reard
The conspiracy is that we stopped going to the moon, not whether we went or not
>>536009606reminder that if you dont believe we went to the moon, you're either brown or a jew. the moon landing is an awesome white achievement, dont let the brown jews take that from you.
>>536012563Before LED lighting became available, the floodlights on film sets generated a lot of heat, sometimes requiring fans or AC to make the actors and crew comfortable.
>>536012723what makes you think its impossible to land men on the moon?
>>536012845I don't think it's impossible to do. However imo the footage and photographs of the apollo landings are faked. >>536012662>the US government lies about absolutely everything except apollo.Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
>>536012394KEK classic
Iconichttps://youtu.be/LrGZR5LRxLk
>>536009606the flag waving shit has been debunked so many times now it has to be sort sort of cognitive dissonance from you lot
>>536013021>However imo the footage and photographs of the apollo landings are faked.no theyre not. >i dont trust da gubmentsounds like a you problem.we landed on the moon, saw aliens, and then ran away. >lets keep sending stuff all over the solar system, but leave the moon alonealiens.
>>536009606iconic you say?
>>536012394australia just preserved the audio of this video in their national archives kek
>>536009606This “polish” guy is an American soldier deployed in Poland. Probably a Mexican too.
>>536014231what makes you think so?
>>536012348*adds little dots in post production*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdHTlUGN1zw
>>536012348I don't know man, why would they even need a dune buggy? Also, is that an umbrella?
>>536012845I have never seen any evidence of reverse rocket landings in the seventies. It seems the feat has only been achievable in the last few years.
>>536017364whats that got to do with anything?
>>536017269This was staged
>>536017176We need to go to the moon, why? Because. Okay but this time, take a car. Why? I don't know it would be cool. Okay.
>>536017176>Also, is that an umbrella?Yes
>>536017364>>536018365Most people don't appreciate how insanely difficult safely landing an apollo lander on the moon would be. The engine had no throttle, it's just assumed the pilot turns it on at exactly the right moment and produces exactly the right amount of thrust so the descent velocity is canceled out just as they reach the ground. Despite never being successfully tested on earth (the test lander crashed) the lander, the engine, the RCS thrusters and the pilot all worked perfectly every time. To reproduce such a feat under controlled conditions on earth took MANY attempts and prototypes with computers a million times more advanced. Apollo pulled it off first time, every time. The design was just perfect right out of the box and the pilots all nailed it on their first try Maybe those apollo guys were just super lucky except for the time they all burned to death in an easily avoidable nasa oversight.
>>536019069Manual aircraft rejoins are extremely difficult. That is, finding, then joining two aircraft in formation. It is a skill that takes many years to develop and master. Visually joining the Lunar module with the Lunar orbiter, using launch timing from a wind-up wrist watch—at 4000 mph in the vastness of space—from an entirely unknown launch angle based on how the lander settled, with no horizon reference, no air brake, very limited miniature thrusters, and in 1/6th gravity is BEYOND ridiculous. Let alone, six times, without a hitch. Did. Not. Happen.
>>536019069>The engine had no throttle,yes it did.> Despite never being successfully tested on earth (the test lander crashed) the lander, the engine, the RCS thrusters and the pilot all worked perfectly every time. all the engines were extensively tested and designed to be incredibly reliable with multiple redundant systems.the LLTV crashed but not before most of the landing crews had practiced dozens and dozens of landings in it.>pilots all nailed it on their first try after many months of training sims and LLTV flights.everything you said is either inaccurate, incredulity, or both.
>>536019273more ignorance and incredulity. orbital rendezvous and docking had been practiced since the gemini program and was a standard operation.
>>536019444>orbital rendezvous and docking had been practiced since the gemini program and was a standard operation.Where did they practice? In the NASA pool?
>>536019444shut up jeet ffs
>>536018413So? Many historic events were.
>>536009606Nah in this case, it's because of the way spacesuits work. They maintain pressure by constantly expelling air, and introdicing new air through cannisters. This means the spacesuit has air vents on the outside constantly shooting air out. That's probably what moved the flag.
>>536019515in orbit
>>536012845Its not impossible and I believe we have done it however due to the space race with Russia I believe the Apollo mission was staged as America was running out of time to win the race to the moon for public morale and looking good on the world stage, especially after losing the first into space race. So it was easier and immediate to simply film a fake landing to claim we got there first and actually go there later at our leisure.
>>536019995so when do you think the real landings happened?
>>536017176Not sure if trolling or retarded because >flag but that's an antenna
>>5360202571987, my cousin Ted tied 5000 large balloons filled with helium to his lawn chair. Never saw him again so he's probably still on the moon to this day.
>>536019069>the lander, the engine, the RCS thrusters and the pilot all worked perfectly every timeThe magic of film: https://luogocomune.net/americanmoon
>>536020358ah, nice. cousin Ted was crazy alright
>>536020471Honest answer though is I don't know. Like I said I'm not one of those guys who thinks its not possible and I do believe we went to the moon I just think for optics we faked the first landing and went later but when I have no idea.
>>536019642>>536011008What damped the vibration?
>>536020673i just ask because apollo 12 landed on the moon about 4 months after 11. there was a gap in launches due to the apollo 13 problems but then 14,15,16 and 17 all happened in pretty quick succession during a less than 2 year period.
When you calculate how long it takes for the flag to be still again you will realize they cant be on the moon
>>536019389>designed to be incredibly reliableAn engine that stops working if the fuel sloshes away from the bottom of the tanks is not my idea of incredibly reliable. On paper if the pilot were to hesitate on the descent, use a little too much throttle, increase altitude, then back the throttle off too quickly and start falling again, the engine would not work since the fuel would be in the top of the tanks away from the pickups. Of course the trainer didn't have this issue since it used a jet engine instead of a rocket and the pilots were free to bob up and down as much as they liked, until they crashed of course. 5 trainers were built and 3 crashed.
this could have been an iconic momentbut it turned into a nothingburger
>>536022686>An engine that stops working if the fuel sloshes away from the bottom of the tanks is not my idea of incredibly reliablewhy do you keep stating things you have no clue about? the fuel system was pressurized with very high pressure helium and so wasn't going to suffer from that kind of simple failure. it might be hard for you to accept but some people actual know what they are doing and how to make things that work.> then back the throttle off too quicklyoh, so now the engine did have a throttle......unlike your first attempt at talking about things you know nothing about.
>>536023796The rcs fuel system used pressurized bladders to work under any conditions. The fuel system for the descent engine relied on gravity and inertia to put the fuel in the correct place. Not ideal in zero or low gravity. An engine that only works under ideal conditions is not that reliable.
>>536024253had no such issues meaning that you're wrong. the only issue with slosh was that the fuel gauges could indicate slightly less fuel than was actually present.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19710028365/downloads/19710028365.pdf
>>536024598>the only issue with slosh was that the fuel gauges could indicate slightly less fuel than was actually present.Sure if you ignore the issue of the descent engine being unable to start unless an rcs maneuver was first performed to move the fuel into the bottom of the tanks.
>>536024835no issues. really not sure why you're artistically hanging on to this problem you invented.
>>536025109oh? >The propellants had to move from the tanks to the engines if the engine was to fire. In the weightlessness of space the contents of the tanks float around. To settle the descent stage propellants at the bottom of the tanks where the outlet is located, the computer performed what was termed an 'ullage' burn. Under control of the computer the small Reaction Control System (RCS) gave a 7 second burn in the 'X' (upwards direction). This settled the propellants to the bottom of the tanks.I'd say that's an issue. Any maneuver that moves the fuel away from the outlet renders the engine inoperable.
>>536009606didn't happen as americans are fake and gay
>>536025404and yet there was never an issue. most liquid fueled rockets do some kind of ullage burns. its a standard operation.
First of all, moon is not grey
>>536026042"there was never an issue, therefore it must have happened" is not a logical argument, you know that, right? Some would say it's a retard argument.
>>536017364James Bond : Thunderball. 1965Jet pack used in opening sequence.>Developed by Bell Aerosystems in the early 1960s, the Rocket Belt was originally designed for the US Army, but the military canceled the project because it was deemed too impractical and dangerous.>Flight Specifications: The device could only fly for a maximum of 20 to 22 seconds, had a range of around 250 meters, and reached top speeds of about 55 km/h.>The Filming: While Sean Connery was filmed in close-up shots using a replica, the long-range stunt flight was actually piloted by professional stuntman Bill Suitor.
>>536021454>When you calculate how long it takes for the flag to be still again you will realize they cant be on the moonShow me those calculations.
>>536017364>The Harrier, often called the "Jump Jet," is a family of jet-powered attack aircraft capable of Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL). Developed in the 1960s by Hawker Siddeley in Britain, it remains famous for its unique ability to swivel its engine nozzles downward, allowing it to hover, take off vertically, and fly without runways.
>>536026804There's also the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which simulated exactly what the actual landing was going to be like for the astronautshttps://youtu.be/s2ejvFX7Q20?t=841
>>536026804That's a good point, but the speeds and altitudes involved aren't exactly comparable.>>536027082>>536027169What about rockets? what was there before starhopper?
>>536027169Ya but NASA made that so its fake.But NPCs will think its real if it came out of Hollywood.After all, we're talking about the governor of California here....
>>536027693>speeds and altitudes involved aren't exactly comparable.The entire device is backpack size and weighs 125 pounds fully fuelled.Id say thats pretty impressive.
>>536027693>the speeds and altitudes involved aren't exactly comparableYou're right, the lunar lander was coming down much slower than the jetpack landingVertical velocity of the LEM at touchdown was 1.8 feet/second, whereas the jetpack looks to be about 4-5 feet per second based on the person's height
>>536028344It's impressive but landing a rocket from 50 feet altitude is probably easier than doing it from many miles. >>536028359>Vertical velocity of the LEM at touchdown was 1.8 feet/secondAnd how fast was it going before that? Yeah. The point is that nasa never tested a rocket powered lander. This wasn't accomplished until mcdonnel douglas did it in the late 90s
Ok, no more (You)s for the Aussie retardHe's clearly not actually interested in the discussion, just in keeping this horseshit thread up as long as possibleNotice how the first 2 replies were each an hour apart, indicating it was bumped just before page 10 by a 1pbtid faggotThis is standard for these coordinated well-poisoning threads
>>536029326>tries to shut down discussion>accuses someone else of not wanting discussionAmerica is not sending their best.
>>536026881duration of flag wiggling on moon ≠ duration of flag wiggling on earthhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Ynote the fabric damps as quickly as in earth's atmosphere when it shoud osciallte significantly longer
the extended oscillation time is nothing they could've faked convincingly, so they left it out and really messed up on that part>>536030747>when the internet was still enjoyable
And there it is againBumped the thread after 42 minutes of no posts, to keep the well poisoned even more
>>536032873you're in my thread bitch and you can eat my shit
>>536033458wonder what mental gymnastics they will apply to that oneso far none at all since it's not part of their script
And now the well-poisoning shill forgot to change VPN for his samefagging
>>536034437thanks for the bump bitchany input on the lack of oscillation?
>nooooo i will not answeri think his illusions are beginning to crumble
>all that time wasted to shill for NASAthe feeling of betrayal is gonna hit harda new bart sibrel is born
