- The moon is already reflective, you can bounce a light and radio off the moon in general, mirror or no.
- By the time a laser gets up to the moon and back it has defocussed so much that it will be covering millions of square meters. Even if there were a mirror up there it would mostly not be bouncing off it.
- The only group who claim to have successfully bounced light off this mirror are NASA. In their paper they failed to account for the rotation of the earth and the moon when calculating where to place the receiver. So they either:
1. Didn't perform the experiment and just made it up
2. Just bounced some light off the moon's surface. Like the sun does every day.
3. Performed the experiment, failed to detect anything and fabricated the results.
That's a lie. The French have been doing it for decades. You're a turd-flinging monkey.
Not what I read. Anyhow you're nitpicking. The fact remains that it's not a pencil thin laser going up and only coming back down when they aim it at a tiny spot where there's supposed to be a mirror.
It's more like the blast a whole region of the moon with laser and try to notice a slight increase in return when they aim at the region that's claimed to have a mirror on it.
Given that different parts of the moon have different albedos there's already differring amounts of light coming back, so your little A3 mirror is lost in the noise. It might be possible to prove if they had done extensive laser mapping of the moon's surface before they went up and noticed a change after the mirror was placed. But even if they had that's still a very tiny change and to my knowledge no one did.
Disable anon instead of text-signing like a faggot.
Then you either read some bullshit and didn't bother to fact check it, or you misremembered and didn't bother to fact check it.
Anyhow you're nitpicking.
Calling out bold lies is not "nitpicking".
The fact remains that it's not a pencil thin laser going up and only coming back down when they aim it at a tiny spot where there's supposed to be a mirror.
Of course it isn't. They take long measurements to collect enough of the tiny amount of photons that come back to get a signal. It's the same principle as taking photographs of galaxies. If you look at them through a telescope, they are feint blobs. When you get a long exposure, they resolve into stunning images that even amateurs can take.
Given that different parts of the moon have different albedos there's already differring amounts of light coming back, so your little A3 mirror is lost in the noise.
The difference is the mirror is a retroreflector that aims directly back to the source, whereas the moon has the albedo of asphalt and scatters light in all directions. So the signal will be strongest from the mirror. Engineers and scientists smarter than you work all this out.
Can't see any option for that
There's a button at the top of the comments to toggle anon.
Then you either read some bullshit and didn't bother to fact check it, or you misremembered and didn't bother to fact check it.
Lmao. Do you look up every sentence you type?
Calling out bold lies is not "nitpicking".
You corrected ONE claim, and the least important one. My argument remains intact.
Of course it isn't. They take long measurements to collect enough of the tiny amount of photons that come back to get a signal. It's the same principle as taking photographs of galaxies. If you look at them through a telescope, they are feint blobs. When you get a long exposure, they resolve into stunning images that even amateurs can take.
We don't have telescopes powerful enough to photograph a mirror on the moon. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone claimed to have done so.
This isn't photographing a distant galaxy, it's claiming that a slight uptick in the number of photons in the middle of a very noisy signal is because of a mirror. It doesn't matter how long they perform the experiment for when the signal to noise ratio is that high.
The difference is the mirror is a retroreflector that aims directly back to the source, whereas the moon has the albedo of asphalt and scatters light in all directions. So the signal will be strongest from the mirror. Engineers and scientists smarter than you work all this out.
Firstly, no it doesn't, reread my original comment. Both the moon and earth are in motion and the distance is great enough for the speed of light to be relevant.
Secondly, like I said, most of the laser is not falling on the mirror and while the albedo of the mirror is obviously higher the ground all around it is reflecting light back. So what they're looking for a very very slightly higher output from a certain part of the moon. But the albedo of the moon is already highly highly variable so there's no way to prove that that higher output is because of a mirror. It's entirely plausible that nasa just laser scanned the moon back in the 60s, picked a spot with high return and said "yeah, we put a mirror there."
There's a button at the top of the comments to toggle anon.
I tend to look up bold claims if I'm not sure about them. Sometimes I find myself typing something like, "I seem to recall", and more often than not I'll just go look up the answer. There's no excuse for talking out of your ass when the real answers are a few keystrokes away.
You corrected ONE claim, and the least important one. My argument remains intact.
It was a very significant claim that was easy to disprove. That was just my opening salvo pointing out your bullshit. I addressed other points after you replied.
We don't have telescopes powerful enough to photograph a mirror on the moon. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone claimed to have done so.
It wasn't an exact analogy. The main principle I was highlighting was that the more data you collect, the stronger the signal.
Firstly, no it doesn't, reread my original comment. Both the moon and earth are in motion and the distance is great enough for the speed of light to be relevant.
Run the numbers and tell me how relevant it is. Compare it to published papers. Do some science. Show me you're better than a turd-flinging monkey.
But the albedo of the moon is already highly highly variable so there's no way to prove that that higher output is because of a mirror.
There's "no way"? You can't run the experiment and not point directly at the mirror as a comparison? Fun fact: They had already done range experiments before placing the retroreflector.
It was a very significant claim that was easy to disprove. That was just my opening salvo pointing out your bullshit. I addressed other points after you replied.
It's a minor point and incidentally I haven't been able to find any evidence of your counterclaim.
The main point is that the experiment is nowhere near as clear cut as people think. You most certainly have not disproven that point.
It wasn't an exact analogy. The main principle I was highlighting was that the more data you collect, the stronger the signal.
Not in this case. The signal is so small among such a huge variation of noise that it really doesn't matter how long the experiment is run, it will never be a strong claim.
Run the numbers and tell me how relevant it is. Compare it to published papers. Do some science. Show me you're better than a turd-flinging monkey.
No. It's an absurd claim to begin with. I pointed out the flaws with it, you've come back with me with nothing except "I heard the french did it too."
There's "no way"? You can't run the experiment and not point directly at the mirror as a comparison? Fun fact: They had already done range experiments before placing the retroreflector.
Had independent third parties laser scanned that region of the moon and were they able to detect a noticeable change in albedo after the mirror was "planted."? If not then this is just NASA saying "trust us bro, it's slightly brighter now."
Come on. This is like claiming you left a watch on top of a distant mountain and you can totally see it twinkling if you shine a torch at it.
The French project to get optical echoes from the lunar surface was launched in 1967 with the support of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique following the experiments made by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Smullin & Fiocco, 1962). However, the accuracy was limited to 100 m, due to the combined effects of the Moon relief and the size of the laser beam. The idea by the LURE team to use retroreflectors (Alley et al., 1965) gave a new direction to this project of building a laser ranging system for the Moon. In parallel, the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales started a collaboration with the USSR to build the retroreflectors for the Lunokhod 1 and 2 rovers. On 21 July 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin placed the first reflector panel on the lunar surface. The Lick Observatory succeeded in obtaining strong return signals from the Apollo XI reflector on 1 August (Faller et al., 1969). This first range measurement was made with an accuracy of 7 m. Soon afterward, McDonald Observatory successfully detected their first returns (Alley et al., 1970). Other range measurements were made at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona (AFCRL, 1970) and the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory in Japan. On the night of 1 November 1969, a French team obtained returns from the Apollo XI reflector at Observatoire du Pic du Midi with a ruby laser (26 J per 1 ms pulse) (Calame et al., 1970). This success convinced the French scientific community to build an instrument dedicated to LLR in a new observatory: The Centre d'Études Géodynamiques et Astronomiques (CERGA) was inaugurated in 1974 on the Calern plateau 20 km from the city of Grasse (French Riviera). [..] Since then, the Grasse laser ranging station has been one of the leading LLR stations.
You can bounce a laser off something on the moon, but how do you know that it was left there by astronauts. Is it topographically or geographically aligned like the pyramids? Is there some other method of verifying it was placed there by NASA?
Probably a lot. I suspect the real scandal with the Soviet space program is what they didn't admit to though. How many tries did it take before they managed to put a cosmonaut in orbit and bring him back for instance? For all we know the reason Gagarin was a drunkard is because of all the people he saw dying around him, then he came back with a nice case of survivor's guilt.
There's also an alleged recording of a cosmonaut dying in space and trying to communicate with any ground stations willing to listen.
I don’t know what’s worse, Aussie assholes or ignorant southern hillbillies when I have to listen to a dissertation. He’s right though. Edit: 1Icemonkey.
Right. Even if they pulled it off it was 100% a worthless vanity project. No scientific knowledge of any particular use was gained and it didn't result in any vehicles cheap enough to do anything useful.
Only a mouth breather has to throw turds to make their worthless selves feel better. They can't imagine achieving great things themselves, so they seek to tear down those that do.
Literally all directed by kikes who had kidnapped Nazi scientists after America faked the Holocaust for the kikes then performed Operation Paperclip, "White mans" achievement my ass. More like a Kikes greatest Hollywood production.
I guess Hollywood kikes faked the rocket, too? Nope, White men built it. Go out and achieve something instead of throwing feces at the people who already did.
NASA and all of the Government departments are all freemasons, kikes and jesuits. They are one part of the industrialized military complex that JFK eludes towards.
I bet you also believe that white men built the pyramids as well, instead of an ancient civilization that was far more advanced then White man could ever imagine.
We may never come to know our true history. Over the course of history, any archeologists that would have tried to present their findings to the world would have had to go through Jewish international press. Even before the kikes had control of modern television, they owned majority of the worlds ability to print and publish news.
What we know about history is full of half truths and lies, carefully shaped by the kikes in control, not the average jew.
I bet you also believe that white men built the pyramids as well
Nope. Those were great achievements in their time. But Whites have surpassed that a million times over. But what do you know of achievements? You're a turd-flinging loser.
DAT LIKE DA TIME DEY SAID I WENT TO KEISHA’S HOUSE BUT IT NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE WITHOUT 2 RUBBERS I WOULD BURN UP N I AINT HAD NO MAGNUMS DAY SO IT NOT POSIBLE
Regarding not having the tech to go there now, there are some explanations. First, just a simple excuse to get more funding, creation of another hurdle to justify funds for. Politically, all the hysteria over risk might have literally made it impossible to go again, because it's not safe enough for the weaklings. Technically, I as going to say that modern electronics are more sensitive than the built-like-a-tank stuff from the 1960s, but they send space vehicles out of orbit all the time, so that can't be it.
If these statements from NASA people and astronauts are real, they are pretty compelling.
[ - ] anon 2655541 [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 20:09:41 ago (+1/-0)
You were tricked into thinking you are smarter then others.
It hurts your head because the video exclaims the truth in which goes against all the brainwashing you grew up with.
Surely you can understand how ridiculous it is to claim that the generic space shuttle could reach speeds higher then a SR71 before hitting the Earths stratosphere... especially when the SR71 is designed to he as thin as a razorblade mate.
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2649586 5 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:13:51 ago (+9/-4)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1595186 9 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:48:54 ago (+13/-4)
- The moon is already reflective, you can bounce a light and radio off the moon in general, mirror or no.
- By the time a laser gets up to the moon and back it has defocussed so much that it will be covering millions of square meters. Even if there were a mirror up there it would mostly not be bouncing off it.
- The only group who claim to have successfully bounced light off this mirror are NASA. In their paper they failed to account for the rotation of the earth and the moon when calculating where to place the receiver. So they either:
1. Didn't perform the experiment and just made it up
2. Just bounced some light off the moon's surface. Like the sun does every day.
3. Performed the experiment, failed to detect anything and fabricated the results.
Broc_Liath
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 13:06:42 ago (+0/-1)
That's a lie. The French have been doing it for decades. You're a turd-flinging monkey.
Disable anon instead of text-signing like a faggot.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1595186 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 16:14:05 ago (+1/-0)
Not what I read. Anyhow you're nitpicking. The fact remains that it's not a pencil thin laser going up and only coming back down when they aim it at a tiny spot where there's supposed to be a mirror.
It's more like the blast a whole region of the moon with laser and try to notice a slight increase in return when they aim at the region that's claimed to have a mirror on it.
Given that different parts of the moon have different albedos there's already differring amounts of light coming back, so your little A3 mirror is lost in the noise. It might be possible to prove if they had done extensive laser mapping of the moon's surface before they went up and noticed a change after the mirror was placed. But even if they had that's still a very tiny change and to my knowledge no one did.
Can't see any option for that
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 18:51:13 ago (+0/-0)
Then you either read some bullshit and didn't bother to fact check it, or you misremembered and didn't bother to fact check it.
Calling out bold lies is not "nitpicking".
Of course it isn't. They take long measurements to collect enough of the tiny amount of photons that come back to get a signal. It's the same principle as taking photographs of galaxies. If you look at them through a telescope, they are feint blobs. When you get a long exposure, they resolve into stunning images that even amateurs can take.
The difference is the mirror is a retroreflector that aims directly back to the source, whereas the moon has the albedo of asphalt and scatters light in all directions. So the signal will be strongest from the mirror. Engineers and scientists smarter than you work all this out.
There's a button at the top of the comments to toggle anon.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 06:34:23 ago (+1/-0)
Lmao. Do you look up every sentence you type?
You corrected ONE claim, and the least important one. My argument remains intact.
We don't have telescopes powerful enough to photograph a mirror on the moon. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone claimed to have done so.
This isn't photographing a distant galaxy, it's claiming that a slight uptick in the number of photons in the middle of a very noisy signal is because of a mirror. It doesn't matter how long they perform the experiment for when the signal to noise ratio is that high.
Firstly, no it doesn't, reread my original comment. Both the moon and earth are in motion and the distance is great enough for the speed of light to be relevant.
Secondly, like I said, most of the laser is not falling on the mirror and while the albedo of the mirror is obviously higher the ground all around it is reflecting light back. So what they're looking for a very very slightly higher output from a certain part of the moon. But the albedo of the moon is already highly highly variable so there's no way to prove that that higher output is because of a mirror. It's entirely plausible that nasa just laser scanned the moon back in the 60s, picked a spot with high return and said "yeah, we put a mirror there."
Fair enough.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 08:56:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 08:57:36 ago (+0/-0)
I tend to look up bold claims if I'm not sure about them. Sometimes I find myself typing something like, "I seem to recall", and more often than not I'll just go look up the answer. There's no excuse for talking out of your ass when the real answers are a few keystrokes away.
It was a very significant claim that was easy to disprove. That was just my opening salvo pointing out your bullshit. I addressed other points after you replied.
It wasn't an exact analogy. The main principle I was highlighting was that the more data you collect, the stronger the signal.
Run the numbers and tell me how relevant it is. Compare it to published papers. Do some science. Show me you're better than a turd-flinging monkey.
There's "no way"? You can't run the experiment and not point directly at the mirror as a comparison? Fun fact: They had already done range experiments before placing the retroreflector.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 17:36:19 ago (+0/-0)
It's a minor point and incidentally I haven't been able to find any evidence of your counterclaim.
The main point is that the experiment is nowhere near as clear cut as people think. You most certainly have not disproven that point.
Not in this case. The signal is so small among such a huge variation of noise that it really doesn't matter how long the experiment is run, it will never be a strong claim.
No. It's an absurd claim to begin with. I pointed out the flaws with it, you've come back with me with nothing except "I heard the french did it too."
Had independent third parties laser scanned that region of the moon and were they able to detect a noticeable change in albedo after the mirror was "planted."? If not then this is just NASA saying "trust us bro, it's slightly brighter now."
Come on. This is like claiming you left a watch on top of a distant mountain and you can totally see it twinkling if you shine a torch at it.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 20:20:23 ago (+0/-0)
That's because you're a turd-flinging monkey that can't even find info after I have laid out breadcrumbs for you:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EA000785
The French project to get optical echoes from the lunar surface was launched in 1967 with the support of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique following the experiments made by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Smullin & Fiocco, 1962). However, the accuracy was limited to 100 m, due to the combined effects of the Moon relief and the size of the laser beam. The idea by the LURE team to use retroreflectors (Alley et al., 1965) gave a new direction to this project of building a laser ranging system for the Moon. In parallel, the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales started a collaboration with the USSR to build the retroreflectors for the Lunokhod 1 and 2 rovers. On 21 July 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin placed the first reflector panel on the lunar surface. The Lick Observatory succeeded in obtaining strong return signals from the Apollo XI reflector on 1 August (Faller et al., 1969). This first range measurement was made with an accuracy of 7 m. Soon afterward, McDonald Observatory successfully detected their first returns (Alley et al., 1970). Other range measurements were made at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona (AFCRL, 1970) and the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory in Japan. On the night of 1 November 1969, a French team obtained returns from the Apollo XI reflector at Observatoire du Pic du Midi with a ruby laser (26 J per 1 ms pulse) (Calame et al., 1970). This success convinced the French scientific community to build an instrument dedicated to LLR in a new observatory: The Centre d'Études Géodynamiques et Astronomiques (CERGA) was inaugurated in 1974 on the Calern plateau 20 km from the city of Grasse (French Riviera). [..] Since then, the Grasse laser ranging station has been one of the leading LLR stations.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 20:42:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 8774908 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:25:45 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 06:37:24 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AOUsNameIsDavid
[ - ] AOUsNameIsDavid [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:29:41 ago (+4/-3)*
Edit: A commercial laser has a range of around 2 miles.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 4 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:32:05 ago (+5/-1)
Create your own faggot sub and post there, faggot.
[ + ]anon
[ - ] deleted 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:45:18 ago (+6/-3)*
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 -2 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 06:47:33 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 09:10:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 10:04:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 13:57:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 14:49:05 ago (+0/-0)
Its noticeable
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 16:04:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 16:07:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 16:32:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 16:33:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 11:43:41 ago (+1/-0)*
Outstanding points about the suits and the melting points of the materials.
Are there any Russians poking holes in their space program? Wonder how much of their program is bullshit too.
Edit: grammar.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1595186 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 16:19:03 ago (+2/-0)
Probably a lot. I suspect the real scandal with the Soviet space program is what they didn't admit to though. How many tries did it take before they managed to put a cosmonaut in orbit and bring him back for instance? For all we know the reason Gagarin was a drunkard is because of all the people he saw dying around him, then he came back with a nice case of survivor's guilt.
There's also an alleged recording of a cosmonaut dying in space and trying to communicate with any ground stations willing to listen.
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3163263 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 10:43:49 ago (+2/-1)
Edit: 1Icemonkey.
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3202556 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:41:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2946869 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:56:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 3202556 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 10:17:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2555172 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:34:01 ago (+3/-2)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:30:44 ago (+6/-5)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:50:42 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1595186 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 16:16:16 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 6789582 2 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:58:26 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 11:24:21 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] MrPancake
[ - ] MrPancake 3 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 11:42:50 ago (+5/-2)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 12:37:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 12:37:54 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 17:09:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AOUsNameIsDavid
[ - ] AOUsNameIsDavid [op] -3 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:39:59 ago (+3/-6)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 4 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:43:17 ago (+6/-2)
[ + ] AOUsNameIsDavid
[ - ] AOUsNameIsDavid [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:11:29 ago (+6/-6)
I bet you also believe that white men built the pyramids as well, instead of an ancient civilization that was far more advanced then White man could ever imagine.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 1738932 4 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:17:58 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] AOUsNameIsDavid
[ - ] AOUsNameIsDavid [op] -3 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 09:24:05 ago (+1/-4)
What we know about history is full of half truths and lies, carefully shaped by the kikes in control, not the average jew.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 11:23:07 ago (+1/-1)
Nope. Those were great achievements in their time. But Whites have surpassed that a million times over. But what do you know of achievements? You're a turd-flinging loser.
[ + ] DukeofRaul
[ - ] DukeofRaul 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 18:28:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2663504 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 08:12:30 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 4183356 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 21:26:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3511188 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 17:28:16 ago (+0/-0)
If these statements from NASA people and astronauts are real, they are pretty compelling.
[ + ] FacelessOne
[ - ] FacelessOne 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 11:41:24 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3163263 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 10:43:14 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 3367826 -1 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 19:12:40 ago (+0/-1)
Source: Aerospace Engineering major, and I understand rudimentary science.
Yes, we went to the Moon.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2655541 [op] 1 point 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 20:09:41 ago (+1/-0)
It hurts your head because the video exclaims the truth in which goes against all the brainwashing you grew up with.
Surely you can understand how ridiculous it is to claim that the generic space shuttle could reach speeds higher then a SR71 before hitting the Earths stratosphere... especially when the SR71 is designed to he as thin as a razorblade mate.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 3367826 -1 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 11:39:32 ago (+0/-1)
Second, if you're going to tell me I'm an idiot, at least have a 6th grade command of the English language.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsJun 8, 2022 13:56:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] MrPancake
[ - ] MrPancake -2 points 1.9 yearsJun 7, 2022 10:02:14 ago (+0/-2)