Has someone a valid explanation for this?
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (96)
sorted by:
The real answer?
What’s on the table is the capsule suit, not what’s worn outside the capsule. The exit suits are FAR more insulated...had that suit/ those boots been worn outside he would’ve either frozen solid or burnt to a crisp depending on what time it was.
(The temperature varies from nearly minus 300° Fahrenheit during the night to plus 212° when sunlit.)
Now try explaining how a fuel propelled rocket navigates through a vacuum
It doesn’t. The liquid fuel thrusters are utilized then dropped before leaving atmosphere. After that inertia thrusters are used. Think of them as controlled explosions...if you fire a rifle in space, it still recoils....the difference is that in space that rifle shot won’t just hurt your shoulder, it will send you on a perpetual journey.
Look: Your lack of understanding the physics doesn’t mean it’s a hoax...it means you need to focus on learning the science. ??♂️
That's easy. Rockets don't push off anything like you are probably thinking.
Ever action has an equal and opposite reaction. Rockets thrust is thrown in the opposite direction they are traveling on. Imagine thousands of tiny baseballs being thrown in the opposite direction. That is what a rocket does.
And it can burn in a vacuum due to oxidisers.
There is no air to push against in a vacuum.
The burnt and expanding fuel and oxegen creates an area of very high pressure directly behind the vehicle
Can we see an example of this anywhere else in nature? Propelling through a vacuum?
Ummm....”anywhere else in nature”?
Where else, pray tell, do you propose a vacuum exists “in nature”?
Just because this is getting stupid, and people think rockets work like jet turbines/propellers...and have apparently skipped basic physics (It’s Newton’s law FFS):
Find a vacuum chamber, stick a bottle rocket inside with an electric igniter, and fire it. It’ll bounce around inside.
Watch.
click here
Bounce off of what?
Which of Newton's laws are you referring to? Because his first "law" as we refer to it requires an EXTERNAL force in order to change momentum.
And the third law requires a force EQUAL IN MAGNITUDE in the opposite direction.
Where, pray tell, do you expect to find forces to satisfy these laws in a vacuum?
You're right, the globers are fucking just brainwashed AF
Right? Feel sorry for them.
I see your posts from time to time when they're not so heavily downvoted. Where do you find this stuff?
Hardcore digging. No lie. Odyssey.com can look up globebusters, taboo conspiracy, gods flat earth. Bitchute less content but better searchability. Founded earth brothers also on youtube. Eric dubay. Also check on those channels their playlists. Usually content that's not theirs they just link to.
Thanks for the leads. Have you had any luck finding a place online that's more receptive to discussion and gets excited by these kinds of things?
That's what I said. Rockets don't need to push off anything and they also don't need O2 to burn.
It is ejecting matter into a vacuum pushing the object.
Relevant username?
It wouldn't push the object because that matter has nothing to bounce off of in a vacuum. There is no "equal and opposite" force
Lol Newtons law isn't "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..but only if there is matter there."
Lmao all these globe shills are fucking morons
It is amazing how you figured this out but millions of scientists over a hundred years somehow fail to grasp this simple concept.
You must be a real genius.
Ad hom. Next.
Also: Rocket fuel contains oxidizers...usually hydrogen peroxide. These, for lack of a better term, create their own oxygen to burn. Same reason that you can shoot Roman candles under water and they still burn.
Yes, underwater rockets exist of course and the type of propellant isn't necessarily relevant to the argument.
It's that in a vacuum, devoid of any matter or molecules, that roman candle has nothing to push against.
It's like falling out of an airplane and trying to swim through the air to get to a lake (sort of a bad example because here we do have air resistance and it would work, but just to illustrate the idea.)
Wrong.
Sorry man, but you are out of your depth on this...inertial thrust doesn’t need an atmosphere.
Newton’s law applies in space as well.
Inertial thrust is science fiction / prototype science- certainly not around in the 1960s. Are you sure I'm the one out of my depth?
And you're begging the question by saying Newton's lawS apply in space.
Newton’s third law does.
And you are an utter moron...I think that’s pretty clear.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic&feature=youtu.be
You're a fucking moron if you think we've ever been to space. What a stooge.
I don't want to deport you but that way of speaking is now allowed here.
Are you serious with this argument? Holy shit. This is not even remotely comparable.
Pumping air out is not the same as an ATOM-LESS INFINITE VACUUM. There are still particles inside that tube.
A tiny cylinder completely encapsulating the object is different from, again an INFINITE VACUUM
Neil took his boots off to feel the moon sand between his toes. That's right, Neil Armstrong's mother was a Caterpillar excavator.
Gross got the keys to his mom
Easy. We never landed on the moon. Russia faked their first launch as well.
Watch "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon".
Armstrong was in low earth orbit faking a photo at the exact time he was supposed to be at the moon and is caught on video.
Hahaha CGI
So in 1969, they had cgi good enough to fake the moon landing but not rocket science good enough to send people to the moon?
You can believe that rockets exist while still acknowledging the utter fakery that occurred to produce the “moon landing” footage shown to the public.
But I guess shills aren’t here to introduce nuance
Do you believe that in 1969, cgi existed that was good enough to fake the moon landing photos and footage?
Absolutely, have you seen 2001? And on top of that, what was the time gap between initial construction of the sr71 blackbird and its official public unveiling?
Special effects and CGI are 2 completely different things dipshit.
They could fake the moon landing with effects, but CGI was not a thing back then, beyond drawing a couple lines on the screen.
Tell me the length of time between the development of the SR71 Blackbird and its public acknowledgement, and then tell me who invented computers
You probably think Black Panther and Wakanda was realistic. Maybe the government has vibranium that allows them to do everything.
Apples and oranges. You’re making specious arguments. Show me real evidence that there was compute power and software that could do that sort of CGI. The blackbird is not the great advancement you’re pitching it to be compared to modern processors which have to be built to compensate for relativistic effects at the atomic level, not to mention the software involved. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The blackbird is not evidence of microprocessor advancement.
Why are you so obsessed with the Blackbird?
It's a great piece of engineering but totally within what was known and possible in its time.
It illustrates the massive gap between military and civilian tech. You are then encouraged to use your 3 remaining braincells in overdrive and apply that logic to cgi fakery.
2001 wasn't made using cgi.
You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Hahahaha shill confirmed, gfys faggit
Kubrick was a master of camera tricks. That's the reason he was supposedly chosen to do the work, because he would stress out over his scenes not being perfect.
https://youtu.be/5ch5WC54egU
2001 wasn't made using cgi.
Try again.
I didn't say it was. I said it was camera tricks and even provided evidence you mouth breathing, "fake news!" crying, insufferable, illiterate little faggot.
It was all CGI. A hoax.
Why haven't they been back. Every public manned attempt since has been a failure. Except for the robotic rovers. The rovers they cannot bring back. The Chinese recent attempt was a fraud.
Obviously there is no footage. Why has the original footage been lost. There is no actual footage of it. There are recordings on top of recordings.
Stanley Kubrick designed the set.
Later there was Diamonds are Forever and Capricorn One.
Without diving into it was impossible for them then. Not in that rust bucket. Without diving into almost every detail which are full of basic flaws.
It hasn't been lost. It is in cold storage.
What on earth are you gibbering about?
How did they have cgi like that in 1969?
Lol, nice job dodging my blackbird question, the answer is that the military tech is approximately 50-60 years more advanced than what they publicly acknowledge.
You’re comparing Hollywood tech from the 60s to military tech, that’s your problem retard
So you do actually believe that in 1969 they had cgi better than what the movie industry has today?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
Rofl, they aren’t sending their best folks, and Ben Schlomo you should just go back to reddit
Relevance of this video?
Lose your dumb attitude. Gibbering about makes you stupid. Because I know something you don't. Hence your dumb attempt at asking me. Obviously if I was typing like a mongo ghklgighufg it might be appropriate. It isn't in a thought out reply.
There is no footage of them on the moon. There is only recordings. The biggest event in human history there is no original footage of. Obviously a hoax. The recordings were tapered with. What aired on TV wasn't even original footage. They aren't in storage they don't exist. There are no originals of mankind's greatest achievement.
Hey fucko why can't they bring the rovers back either. Either to them going back. Meanwhile 60 years later the Chinese just faked there's as well.
Stanley Kubrick space odyssey, CGI right. Hardly the same effects as today but still special affects. Yes they used computers then.
That is false. Why are you claiming this?
The moon is mankind's greatest achievement to date. It is another World off our own.
Except fucko it didn't happen. It was a hoax.
Stick do the question.
Why are you claiming that the footage that was taken during the mission does not exist?
Hey, what's that?
Why, its the boot that goes over the shoes.
Any retard with access to google could have found out in 30 seconds.
Yo, are you stupid enough to believe the Apollo missions landed on the moon? Are you actually saying that? I think reddit is more your area.
He’s not saying the moon landing is confirmed, he’s saying this stupid ass post doesn’t prove anything. Learn the difference, retard.
What the fuck are you talking about? All he did was post a link about the boots. That doesn’t mean he thinks the whole thing is confirmed, only that it’s reasonable that the boots didn’t match. You are an example of our failed education system. Learn to think critically.
Maybe in a different thread. He posted some images indicating why the boots alone aren't any proof, you accuse him of thinking the landing is real, and I respond that he didn't say that. I don't care about other discussions you're having. Read this specific comment thread. He says nothing about fucking dust. You're having like 10 different conversations and bringing up shit that's not part of this specific discussion.
How did they fake the parabolic arcs of the moon dust that was stirred up by the astronauts walking on the moon?
Before you answer: do you actually know what I am talking about?
Do I know what you're talking about is a funny question, when you don't even seem to know what you're talking about. The evidence that you are referring to is that the moon dust supposedly DIDN'T fall in a parabolic arc, because parabolic arcs are what happen here on earth. So you asking how they faked a parabolic arc, is gibberish.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question I assume you thought you were asking; Why DIDN'T the dust kicked up by the rover fall in a parabolic arc?
The answer to that is simple, we have a tiny amount of footage that shows this and the way the dust falls is hardly conclusive, many scientists still debate it. We also have testimony from astronauts who were supposedly there that contradict the dust NOT falling in a parabolic arc:
Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke did say, while describing what it was like to ride in the lunar rover, that “Moon dust was pouring down on us like rain, and so after a half of a Moon walk, our white suits turned gray.”
This contradicts your story that the dust DIDN'T fall in a parabolic arc, and in fact was kicked up into clouds that poured down on them.
Thanks for playing, try again.