Aluminum foil manufacturer thank you wrote:
Just want to thank the trolls in this thread for the many yards of aluminum foil purchased over the years to prevent government mind control.
Today, there are more environmental solutions.
Aluminum foil manufacturer thank you wrote:
Just want to thank the trolls in this thread for the many yards of aluminum foil purchased over the years to prevent government mind control.
Today, there are more environmental solutions.
There are no blast craters when the lunar modules landed. Oops, NASA forgot that one too, bro.
Aluminum foil manufacturer thank you wrote:
Just want to thank the trolls in this thread for the many yards of aluminum foil purchased over the years to prevent government mind control.
Other than trying to introduce comedy into the discussion, which fell flat. Explain to me how the lunar rover which used air filled rubber tires, didn't explode while in a vacuum on the moon? Please enlighten us.
Moon Shot wrote:
How does curry explain this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcbcdDBUsAAMjGl.jpg
Ah, Photoshop & CGI. This is what the NASA believers fall for.
NASA- OneBigLie
Steph answered all of these questions. Just go home devastated.
I gave my employees the afternoon off for the total eclipse when I was running my business in north Georgia...
I asked a few brothers where the we’re going to watch the eclipse...
They said, ‘in my living room with the curtains drawn, only crazy white guys buy glasses to look at the damn thing!’
Brothers get it right...
Steph,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Game day bucket go boom
+1
That's a key piece of evidence that is an important factor in this debate.
Hilarious. Somebody quotes "Wikipedia" as their so-called evidence of moon landings.
We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions.
Not any proof at all. Firstly, they can be faked. Secondly, even if originated at moon, is no proof of USA "Manned" Mission at all.
Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the United States Apollo program "manned" lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna programme unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface.
If the Russian did it a few years later, surely USA could do unmanned robotic sample collection during their fakery.
We even have rocks from Mars. Does that prove that USA Astronauts landed there?
One of the oldest Martian meteorites found on Earth, ALH84001, discovered in the Allan Hills of Antarctica, has been reported to have crystallized from molten rock 4.091 billion years ago.
One of my sons who is a working architect and a graduate of a top tier school only recently admitted that the moon landing was real. There appears to be a thing with some millennials who by all apperances are not stupid, they love saying stupid things and get a kick out of the attention and push back they get from people. I don't believe they truely believe the stupid things they say; believing in conspiracies is cool.
You're right. It is about evidence, which there is tons of. The decent stages of the 6 successful landings and other equipment are still on the moon and have been verified to be there. We have moon rocks and dust samples brought back by the missions. They left laser reflectors there on the moon.
Descent debris and equipment (laser reflectors) can easily be dumped w/o actually landing. Moon rocks and dust samples have been collected by Soviet unmanned probes.
I think it would say a lot about the retrogression of human intellect, if we were able to go to the moon 50 years ago, but have no idea how to do it now.
It makes you think that ancient civilizations of thousand (or millions) of years ago could likely be much smarter than us, and we've lost so much knowledge in the meantime.
Legit question wrote:
Aluminum foil manufacturer thank you wrote:
Just want to thank the trolls in this thread for the many yards of aluminum foil purchased over the years to prevent government mind control.
Other than trying to introduce comedy into the discussion, which fell flat. Explain to me how the lunar rover which used air filled rubber tires, didn't explode while in a vacuum on the moon? Please enlighten us.
Are you really THAT stupid? Seriously?
That is supposed to be a tough question? Really?
Air filled rubber tires will indeed explode if the difference in air pressure inside the tire and outside the tire exceeds certain limits. So, for example, an air-filled rubber tire which can handle a difference of 35 psi in air pressure will perform without issue (sorry, no explosions) if the internal pressure is 50 psi while the external pressure is 15 psi (typical air pressure on Earth). To use the same tire on the moon one would inflate to 35 psi internal pressure so that with the 0 psi external pressure (vacuum of the moon) the difference in air pressure remains at 35 psi (sorry, no explosions).
I repeat, are you really that stupid? Seriously?
Sorry, I refuse to believe anyone can be that stupid while apparently having sufficient cognitive skills to type some words and spell them mostly correctly. Of course, that makes you a . . . troll.
2/10. Good job!
Sand Dunes wrote:
winnr1 wrote:
Kyrie renounced the flat earth a while back
They got to him, you could tell by his body language in his confession he still believes the earth is flat.
Sand Duns renounced it as well a couple days ago. Blamed it on his veganism making him crazy.
Why do you have so much trouble keeping your lies straight SandDunes?
Explain to me how the lunar rover which used air filled rubber tires, didn't explode while in a vacuum on the moon? Please enlighten us.
The Lunar Rover was only used from Apollo 15 onward.
So anyway, you haven't proved that Apollos 11, 12, and 14 didn't land on moon yet.
Nope, the LRV had wire-mesh, the MET (Apollo 14) was the one with rubber inner tubes.
Unfortunately, very little of the lunar wheel technology was transferred to the private sector. This is
because there are no Earth applications with similar mission and environmental constraints.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100000019.pdfR U R U Really? wrote:
So, for example, an air-filled rubber tire which can handle a difference of 35 psi in air pressure will perform without issue (sorry, no explosions) if the internal pressure is 50 psi while the external pressure is 15 psi (typical air pressure on Earth). To use the same tire on the moon one would inflate to 35 psi internal pressure so that with the 0 psi external pressure (vacuum of the moon) the difference in air pressure remains at 35 psi (sorry, no explosions).
Only off by a factor of 25x! (And you had air instead of nitrogen) Good job in dispelling the ignorance....
The MET tires were 4 inches wide and 16 inches in diameter, and were inflated with 1.5 psi nitrogen preflight. The tires were baked at 250 degrees F for 24 hours preflight to remove most of the antioxidants in the rubber. Operating limits for the MET tires are -70 deg. F to +250 deg. F.
It should be easier to fake it with today's technology than with 1960s.
Why hasn't Hollywood done a re-make yet?
Absolutely based