Sign into an existing account

@chrimony, If you actually think about it, this test isn't a gravity test, it's a density test. If it were a gravity test, you would see a difference in falling speed based off of the mass of the object, but we don't see that. We see they fall at the same rate, which means it has nothing to do with the mass of the object, but the objects density in relation to the resistance of the media in which it is falling.

But why are they falling in the first place? Gravity.


Air resists the downward force of gravity. It's like falling through the branches of a tree. Or a cannon ball shooting upwards hitting an object falling down.

The density matters because F = ma. So a tiny force on a large mass (an air molecule pushing on a coin) results in little acceleration upwards. It's like a ping pong ball hitting a bowling ball. A tiny force on a tiny mass (an air molecule pushing on a feather) results in a much bigger acceleration upwards. That's why dust particles get blown around in the air quite easily, but they will eventually settle if there is no air flow. And when the air is removed, all objects fall at the same rate, because it's only the downward acceleration of gravity that matters.

Imagine you spend the 1960s building special vehicles and an entire program for sending a manned mission to the moon. You achieve your goals and mothball everything -- the public is no longer interested in sending men to the moon. 50 years later some douche on the Internet expects that you can just dust it off and hop on a rocket to the moon.

It's not like we can't recreate it -- because we certainly are, but it will take time, and of course they aren't just going to slavishly copy what was done before. Mission specs are different, and they will come up with new designs and take advantage of modern technology. All this has to be built and tested.

And after it's done? You'll still get douchebags on the Internet saying it's all been faked. Who cares?


Tons of video and audio still exists. And there's data from the science experiments. And the data needed be created in the first place for the engineers to run the mission.


I've looked. It's typical stuff that looks weird but has ordinary explanations.


Lulz. First it's the data has been destroyed, so we can't look at it. Then it's they release TOO MUCH. You know a 2 hour movie takes tons of video and is highly edited down to a finished product, and they still manage to fuck it up. You get a look at tons of raw product, and you complain it's part of the cunspirahcee.


As I was saying, looks funny, but has ordinary explanations. The first part: His heels are up -- oh, so if you're wearing moon boots, you can't flex your feet and raise your heels? The second part: Seen this a gazillion times. It looks funny because 1/6 gravity, bulky suits, and low-framerate, but he clearly is using his arms and legs to push himself up, despite the video saying "nor with help from his own arms or legs". LOOK AT THE FUCKING VIDEO. He clearly is pushing with his arms against the ground. His legs start out against the ground.

And on and on it goes. I've seen these retarded talking points a gazillion times before. This is the kind of shit you guys choose to denigrate White man's greatest achievement with.


Do you have lunar soil lying around? No? Then how do you know how it behaves, or its exact properties? You can make footprints in fine soil when it is dry. The lunar dust was also infamous for sticking to the astronauts suits and getting everywhere. But 'tards act like lunar soil is sand at the beach.

And why would they have been using "moist dirt" in the first place to simulate lunar soil? It makes no fucking sense. "Hey guys, we're going to bring in the 'lunar soil' now. Go get the topsoil we pulled from Bob's garden!"


Makes it much more likely something is leaked, and also that much harder to pull off. You have to get all these guys together to agree to such a project and to keep their mouths shut. For decades.

And I'm not getting dragged into a 9/11 discussion as proof of anything. That's an even a bigger tarpit than the Kennedy assassination.


Monitoring? Yes. Working with? I don't see any evidence from the Newsweek article you linked. And this Yahoo article talks about a phone tap from an Oswald call to a Russian embassy. Ok?

https://news.yahoo.com/newly-released-jfk-documents-point-to-what-the-cia-was-hiding-002728388.html

"Most of a 23-page internal CIA memo documenting that phone call and other details of Oswald’s pre-assassination trip to Mexico City — a visit that has been the subject of endless speculation — was released years ago. But a few previously classified portions of that memo were finally released this week, a small part of the more than 13,173 newly unredacted documents disclosed by the National Archives under a 1992 law requiring the release of all government material relating to what was arguably the most shocking and consequential crime in American history."

[..]

"In short, like much of the newly disclosed JFK papers, the memo didn’t contain any bombshells that prove an elaborate conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Instead, it was the CIA trying to hide how it does its business — in this case, forging a relationship with a foreign official to operate a secret listening center on Mexican soil."


So an unverifiable, anonymous source. And again, I'm not saying the CIA being involved is some crazy conspiracy theory, it's quite plausible. But even here we don't have the goods.