Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Moon landing hoax
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....because there is no atmosphere, the dust would follow a ballistic trajectory.........how did they manage to congeale onto surveyor ('s pads) when it fired it's rockets.
Because the moon has no air to move the dust the only way the dust would have moved is by physical contact with the rocket plume. Now if this plume could reach the moon from 30 meters above the surface. Imagine how big a disturbance it would have caused as it spread out accross the lunar surface.
On all the moon landings.... there is no crater, there is no dust blown away.......the only conclusion is that this guy (Lander) is put here by a crane.
The quotes are from the vid don't listen if you don't want to. Pretty much covers the argument you're putting foward.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The quotes are from the vid don't listen if you don't want to. Pretty much covers the argument you're putting foward.there is no dust blown away.......the only conclusion is that this guy (Lander) is put here by a crane.
That is simply false. Example from Apollo 11:
The dust is clearly blown away directly under the engine bell.....it even is shown in a radial pattern.
Seriously this video guy is just making stuff up......and he called Eugene Cernan by the wrong name AGAIN!! The truth is not what he is interested in.
Apollo 12 area under the engine bell swept of the fine dust.
Apollo 14....more evidence of the sweeping effect of the engine bell.0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »That is simply false. Example from Apollo 11:
The dust is clearly blown away directly under the engine bell.....it even is shown in a radial pattern.
Seriously this video guy is just making stuff up......and he called Eugene Cernan by the wrong name AGAIN!! The truth is not what he is interested in.
Apollo 12 area under the engine bell swept of the fine dust.
Apollo 14....more evidence of the sweeping effect of the engine bell.
Judge for yourself how that looks, 3,000lbs of thrust for five seconds and yet the aastronaughts boot print looks deeper! Real convincing. Is that dust on apollo 14's landing pads/ legs. ((:eek:))0 -
Mr. Incognito wrote: »They were. Unfortunately I left my KGB library card in my other coat so you'll have to take the circumstancial evidence that in the midst of the Cold War if the Soviets smelt a rat they would have been screaming it from the rooftops
Okay, look. This is my game. I make the rules. You go start your own game and I'll decide whether to join in. We, the 89% are in the majority. You, the 6% are in the minority. If you want to challenge convencial wisdom you're the one that has to cough up the evidence for it. It's the conspiracy forum after all. My evidence is that it is a FACT. You don't believe so you have to prove it is not a FACT.
You seem to be having the same logical breakdown here. This is the moon. Dust requires moisture to stick to things. There is no athmosphere on the moon. The lander was in exposed space which would have been in a vacuum in many hundreds of degrees on the way down in much much lower gravity.
Think of dry sand and that wet sand inside your knickers at the beach, you see the difference? now dry that sand to absolute zero moisture content, it ain't even sticking to other sand dude.
Well it seems to have stuck to the asstronauts knee's just fine back in the faked pic, haha, go back and look..
Uprising, about that pic you posted
You are asking why there is a shadow in the ground behind the lander in that pic and no shadow on the front of the astronaut in the other pic?
No I'm asking why in the first faked pic, the light source is behind him yet even though the front of him is lit very well, is the BIG pic that was posted, more or less exact same position the light is coming from, yet if you look at the edge of his legs you can see a black shadow forming, how is it so?, the first well lit front (taken of the front), the 2nd well lit back, black shadow clearly visible on edge of leg extending to the front(taken from the back), 2 very contradicting photo's.
I can't really see the point of this question? There was a shadow in the first pic you referened, on the ground also. The difference are the angles involved. In both cases the sun is above them angling down, light reflects down and bounces up hense things off the ground trap reflected light, those things that are just in the way cast a shadow behind them. What's the issue here. Stick and astronaut in that shadowed bit and take a pic and i'll guarantee you there's be other light sources illuminating them from reflected light. Are you comparing the ground with elevated objects?
Your "facts" are full of flaws, so give us YOUR 5 reasons instead of avoiding your own little game, haha, your avoiding your own game,
GIVE US YOUR 5 REASON'S WHY IT IS NOT A HOAX!,
Don't avoid it.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,253 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59180
OK others have had a go at your list. I'll throw my size 9's in
Actually they're not. Its in the last 20 years that both mars and moon meteorites have been recognised as coming from those places. OK lets say they did know back then. Such rocks have a different structure, due to the processes involved. Then there's the amounts involved. Moon(or mars) meteorites are incrdibly uncommon and very sought after and worth a fortune. Find one and name your price. Lotto win time. They brought a fair load back.FlameoftheWest wrote: »
[*]Moon Rocks are easy enough to find in the Antartic
Well it was kicked off by JFK and Johnson took over the reins and was well in place before Nixon.[*]All Lunar Mission took place during the Nixon corrupt administration - working with lunatics such as Jack Parson and several high ranking former NAZIs. Hardly a recipe for honesty and ethics.
True but I'd pull the Concorde example there.[*]No manned space mission since has gone that deep into space
Maybe. But look at the original photos. One thing that stands out is that special effects were pretty primitive back then. Look at 2001 by Kubrick. Major leap forward, yet "his" moon is clearly fake. Look at recent SFX of the moon. Apollo 13 say. It's very well done but again looks fake at the landing site scene. All moon scenes in movies before the landings looked more rugged and much less smooth. Including NASA's own simulations and simulators. The space suits look wrong in movies too. Well they're not pressurised for a start. OK pressurise them on earth? Try moving in them then. Never mind the weight. Watch Alan Bean throw a lump of foil on the moon. Try faking that now, never mind then. I agree with armstrong when he said it was easier and cheaper to go than to fake it.[*]The faked WMD photos in Iraq suggest the recent Apollo Landing site images can't automatically be trusted
Maybe, but a PHD doesnt always mean they get it right either. I've a book from the early 50's where a number of respected boffins cast serious doubt whether we could even achieve orbit.[*]I never even knew there even was an Apollo hoax until a PhD in Cosmology whom I was saying to one night. "Be fantastic if they had of built a full time moon base" came back with. "Be fantastic it they sent a manned mission to the moon to begin with!" - he then gave me all kind of reasons based on physics which I did not understand which he said cast grave doubts that a Apollo was ever real. He said like the Global Warming hoax (recently exposed as a lie and scam by an army of sleazy "scientists") - any acedemic who said this publically would have their career ended.
The landing blast crater? OK lets say they did fake it? Dont you think they would have simply put a blast crater in? Thats what everyone expected and was a concern. They weren't sure about the nature of surface, even though both russian and american landers had gone there before. They werent even sure they could walk around. They expected to go deeper into the surface. hence the ladder is so high and Armstrong had worries about being able to jump back up. The landers legs didnt compress as much as they thought. Armstrong also commented on how little the surface was disturbed under the rocket bell. Again he's hardly going to point this out. Much easier to just fake a crater.
Now back to xrays fogging the film. The earlier lunar probes russian and american had film cameras too and they werent fogged and they were there for longer.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,253 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59180
I agree, but the answering I'm seeing is all one way. Hoaxers say A, skeptics say well that can be explained by X. Hoaxers come back with you're wrong.That's all anyone is asking for here. This isn't the bleedin' inquisition.
Can you or any other person on the hoax side explain or counter explain any of my points raised? "You're wrong" is not an explanation.
Exhibit A.I made the point that your arguments don't stand up because they don't.
Low level ad hominem attack does no debate any favours and again smacks of closed mind and "la la la la la Im not listening!" form of debate.Don't expect me to send you off to jail or something just because what you believe is rubbish misinformed.There's been loads of discussion here previously and people just won't admit when they're wrong sometimes. If you'd like we could start over, but I have to say ..............
OK one example. Just one. Can anyone answer just this one for the moment. The "Doozy proof" photo showing the lunar rover tracks while the lunar rover is apparently undeployed. I and others have shown that the package in the photo simply cant be the rover. It wasnt stowed there. Like opening the boot of a car and expecting to see the engine(feck off VW beetle/ferrari owners).
So straight answer. With your research on this subject, is this "smoking gun" wrong or right? Simple as that.
If this example isnt to your liking I can provide others? Same mountains in the background. Experimental data brought back. Camera/photo "issues". Blast crater etc.
As have I. With the exception of uprisings take on exposure latitude etc which was food for thought, all I see on the hoax side are successive links to youtube vids with easily explainable holes in their notions for the most part. Some really glaring ones. On that basis alone, I would fall on the side of the evidence of the other side which is pretty overwhelming.I've heard this before y'know.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
OK one example. Just one. Can anyone answer just this one for the moment. The "Doozy proof" photo showing the lunar rover tracks while the lunar rover is apparently undeployed.
I've never argued that is was? It's a yes then, 1/0 to wibbs.Camera/photo "issues". Blast crater etc.
.
Can we journey back in time to postcount 141? The issue of fake photos is clearer here. Have a look at the video and tell me what you think.
*The video has shown the apollo lander with one aastronaught decending the steps. In the video the aastronaught appears as a dark figure. In the still image taken of the same aastronaught on the same steps he is well lit.0 -
Which may be so, but mostly it's based on "Im not listening la la la la". And he and others have made points. You just refuse to acknowledge them or just say they're wrong.
Yes well Mr Incognito arrived here with a "Make WAY for the MAN, there's a new GUN in town, now let me tell you all how it is!" attitude, then does zilch, I hope he didn't print this thread and laminate it yet, It's not over yet, by the end I don't think he'll be printing anything, haha it's laughable the sophisticated entrance, the I'm the boss attitude, cacks about stuff he doesn't understand, makes up a game (for us,:rolleyes:, haha), then excludes himself from it, he hasn't a clue and I think he'll regret not, not coming back.
And why should I back down on something I know I am right about.
OK I'l bite but doubtless will be met by the same tired arguments....
Moon rocks. They collected nearly 400 kilos of rocks. Meteorite moon rocks found on earth? Less than 30 kilos. PLus meteorites of moon and mars were not recognised as such until the late 70's. And are worth a fortune and we've had 20 years to look for them.
Moon rock's don't need humans to collect them, I never doubted unmanned missions.
Fogging film. Lunar probes, both from the US and Russia had film cameras that survived with no fogging, for longer periods of time too.
Surface radiation on the moon. When parts of the surveyer probe were brought back they had still viable bacteria coughed onto the probe by one of the assemblers. Indeed this discovery prompted both the US and Russia to instigate very stringent sterilisation rules on any future probes to avoid contamination of other worlds.
Van Allen belts. Van allen himself said that they would not pose a danger so long as the astronauts passed through them quickly. They flew with the bulk of the craft and engines upstream into the radiation which afforded more protection. Radiation counters on previous and subsequent probes have found that for the most part the radiation is similar to a chest x ray over the trip to the moon and back. Even so both Aldrin and armstrong and later lunar astronauts reported seeing flashes in their eyes as high energy particles passed through same. Plus some of the plexiglass in their helmets showed tiny tracks where particles hit. Not seen on near earth orbit missions. Living and working on the moon long term would require heavier sheilding to minimise the risk(underground being one notion). Ditto for long missions like a punt to mars.
Well tell that to these guys:
A team of researchers is looking to the moon to develop the tools future astronauts may need to ward off potentially life-threatening levels of space radiation.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/lunarshield_techwed_050112.html
Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.
"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."
Hollywoods best efforts at the time and subsequently do not mirror the moon footage and look fake even on first glance. Simply because the movement of dust and the astronauts and their equipment is taking place in 1/6th earth gravity in a near vacuum. Not on a soundstage.
Speed up the frame rate while taking the moving images, then play them back at normal speed, thats that problem sorted.
The idea that we cant do it now but could in the 60's is trounced by things like Concorde, or the SR71 blackbird. Maybe the yanks do have faster aircraft(eg Aurora), but spy satellites made ploughing money into hyper fast spy planes redundant. The winning of the space race made Apollo too costly and sooner or later someone would be lost too.
Plenty of astronauts have died, hasn't stopped them yet, so re-think that one.
BTW How do you know that all space shots arent fake? If they could fake the moon shot, why not fake all the others? It would be much easier. The scenes in the CM in Apollo 13 the movie look like the real thing after all. One Vomit comet plane and time and away you go. Yet the moon walking scenes look wrong?
I don't know that they all aren't fake, actually after releasing the first fake one's maybe they had to fake the rest.
Blast crater. Again simple question. A crater was expected. You would think one would happen. So if they faked everything else why not fake the most obvious thing that everyone(inc the nasa boffins) expected to happen? OK so lets say you got lazy? Why then get the hoax astronauts to comment on, film and take hi def photos of the ground under the LEM? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Well for the way the dust was kicking up behind the lunar rover a crater would be expected, but isn't there?
Video from the moon. There is tens of hours of video from the various moon landings. A figure of 40 hours alone for Apollo 17. Hundreds if not 1000's of photos. Out of that large visual repository not one single obvious mistake is made(with the possible example of the aldrin descending the LEM ladder shot). No shot of a studio light. Not one bit of equipment, dust or man that is a smoking gun. BTW the "unpackaged rover" is not one of them as that has been thoroughly exposed as mistaken identity of the bay and a lack of understanding about how the rover deployed in the first place. I note that "doozy proof" hasnt come up again. :rolleyes:
With the possible aldrin decending?, you mean when "somebody turned on the light?", pictures are inconsistant, and obviously they can keep the lights out of the shots, nothing convincing here.
So the other 400Kilos of rock? what about that lot? One piece of known provenance but dodgy private history wipes them out? Just because you hear hooves, dont expect zebras.
Yea but what if you hear hooves then a motorbike shows up?
Again its more "la la la la la. Im nootttt lissstening". With respect I would contend none of your arguments stand up. Every one you bring up has been debated and when it has, rather than come back with a counter debate, you and others retreat into "you're wrong/You don't get it/You're easily fooled/We know something you don't/You just dont get it". Jeez this is often the claim made against types in "secret societies"
I would be quite prepared to look at some of this stuff if the counter arguments weren't so, well... weak.
The case that they went is much, much weaker.
I do have issue with some of the Apollo 11 shots that uprising mentioned. the dynamic range is very wide. Too wide it seems at first sight. Im not close minded,much as may like to think I am. I'm open to reasoned debate, not "you're just wrong"
I'll debate the images till the cows come home.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,253 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59180
Ok lets look at the famous aldrin pic they mention. In that sequence they claim the scene is not evenly lit. Its not in the example they give, but in the original it is. This seems to be a common thread in hoaxer evidence. A badly scanned image is used not one close to the original. The original shows no such fall off.
then we come to the first shot they mention. That of Buzz coming down the steps. The comparison with the video camera is a complete red herring. The Video feed on that mission was very low quality, black and white and even in shots were they're in full sunlight there is much ghosting and dark areas. It simple did not have the dynamic range of even a basic stills camera.
OK then we get to to fill in light idea. I have to admit I like this one and it has given me food for thought.
First thing is the reflectivity of the the surface. They compare it to asphalt on the earth. OK, but look at any of the moon photos and its very bright(to the camera). This includes probe photos too. A lot of detail can be seen. Its also very bright as an object from here on earth. The comparison to asphalt only holds water if there were other surfaces there brighter or darker. There isn't. Its very uniform. This also ironically makes photography easier. One F stop/shutter speed fits all kinda thing. Not quite not not far off. You would need two settings broadly speaking. Full sun exposure and shadow exposure. On earth you have to contend with many different surfaces and reflectivities and atmospheric changes. If you imagine building on earth a huge box open to the sun the surface is all one reflectivity. Photographing objects in there would be easier than say in a city with different surfaces. On the moon easier again as the primary light remains constant as does the reflectivity of the ground. There's no sky to add issues either, nor atmosphere to diffuse the light over distance.
OK so the fill in light. The first guy. PHD boyo who works with holography and image enhancement. First issue. How can he make a call on an angle that precise from that boot? That smells fishy.
The other bigger problem is the use of a fill in light itself. At the distance he claims, the fill in light would cause many more hotspots and harsh shadows. They're not there. If we say the fill in light was huge and further away that casts doubt on his hypotheses in the first place. If we look again at the video taken at the same time we can see Neil in very bright sun(to the video camera). If he was using the "shadow" exposure setting, then the reflected light would be enough. The area in full sun is over exposed by comparison.
If you take the entire roll you will see screw ups and bracketed shots(specifically of the plate on the LEM), over exposures, under exposures. Bad framing(the famous aldrin shot he does what dads did for generations taking pics of the family and promptly lops the top of Buzz's head off
). http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Ap11_Mag40.jpg
My take anyway.
EDIT found a better less hamfisted explanation than mine
:D http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Ap11_Mag40.jpg
Now look at AS11-40-5964.jpg, the black shadow on his back should also have been in this pic, why is it not?, thats been my argument all along, and AS11-40-5964.jpg proves what I was saying has been correct all along. Actually as your scrolling down to AS11-40-5964.jpg look at the numerous others with the "black" shadow everybody says shouldn't be there, either people can't tell black from white, or are simply blinded by the whole hoax and even though they see the black will claim it is white. 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I look forward to being proven incorrect in my belief we actually went to the moon.
Can I ask what your views are on the Mythbusters moon hoax episode - are these guys in cahoots with NASA and the US government?
Ohh God help us!, your putting mythbusters as your angle of proof...:rolleyes:.
Also notice the shadows on the real Asstronaut, haha, the same shadows I've been talking about.0 -
I look forward to being proven incorrect in my belief we actually went to the moon.
Can I ask what your views are on the Mythbusters moon hoax episode - are these guys in cahoots with NASA and the US government?
Mythbusters are putting foward many points most of them we have not discussed here. If you're relying on mythbusters..............well, you'd have better spent your time reading through the last 16 pages.
As for LRO, the images are faked would you believe.
0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,253 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59180
Ok that is an explanation indeed. They would want to have fired up a fair few probes to get that amount back(the first mars return mission is hoping for less than a kilo. Bigger distance though) but yep that could be done alright..Moon rock's don't need humans to collect them, I never doubted unmanned missions.
The important terms are short and long term. If you're getting a chest xray fine. If youre working the xray machine wear a lead jacket. Its also the nature of the radiation too. Some radiation is stopped with very little. Radium as a source for example. Used in wristwatches back in the day for read in the dark dials. The watch glass stops most of it and none or feck all goes through the back of the watch case. The danger came from those who had to apply it*. I have a couple of old dials with radium. Had them checked out and the counter doesnt go batshít. In transit they made sure they went through the thinnest part of the van allen belts. Plus the CM had shielding. You dont need lead. They were also aware of solar flares and allowed for that. 17 missed one by a few weeks. Long term on the moon? Yes you would need sheilding. Underground would be the best. Ditto with Mars. And they did note radiation effects. the flashes in their eyes from hi energy rays. The tracks in their visors from same. The way above average cataract rate among the moon guys. All but one of them suffered them. Statistically younger. Both swigert and shepard died of cancer and given they were supremely fit men. The former from luekemia IIRC. So maybe they werent so lucky. Lots of heart attacks too and one researcher reckoned he found a link between amount of chest x rays and heart disease, so.... Plus while radiation is dangerous people have shown very varying responses to it. Especially adults. Look at hiroshima or nagasaki. Two bloody dirty crude nukes and the cancer rates in those cities now is pretty equal to the rest of Japan. Chernobyl another example. Yes adults died, but in far fewer numbers than expected. Children were the main casualties. Even there.... another CT thread methinks.....Well tell that to these guys:
A team of researchers is looking to the moon to develop the tools future astronauts may need to ward off potentially life-threatening levels of space radiation.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ed_050112.html
Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.
"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."
Easy answer but it doesnt work like that. Show me a staged moonwalk, any staged moonwalk that looks like the Apollo footage. The Apollo "bunny hop" for a startSpeed up the frame rate while taking the moving images, then play them back at normal speed, thats that problem sorted.
Now look at what looks like a card or material on one of the guys waist. It's not moving in slow mo. Again the apollo bunny hop was not how they envisaged walking on the moon. Look at any movie including NASAs before they went and walking normally in slo mo was the order of the day. These shots and others like it are not slow mo whatever they are.
The three that died on the pad on apollo 1 nearly ground the project to a halt. This was when the public were behind it. By apollo 17 people were bored of apollo and its expenditure. If three guys had died then it wuld have been game over for NASA. No CT required. Look at what happened after challenger. The shuttle was grounded. PR alone would have said quit while youre ahead lads. They had the gear to do two more, hence you can see two saturn 5's laying on their side to this day. Actually 3. Skylab cannabalised the 3rd.Plenty of astronauts have died, hasn't stopped them yet, so re-think that one.
Possible, but for my mind unlikely. Possible though.I don't know that they all aren't fake, actually after releasing the first fake one's maybe they had to fake the rest.
Still doesnt answer that question though. You expect a bigger crater. They expected a bigger crater. the LEM design allowed for that. So why if they faked everthing else sooo well, why not just dig a big crater? Or better yet dont comment at length on it or take video and high def shots of it. As for the dust. The moon's dust is very different to dust on earth. Its sharper and compacts far more quickly with depth. So dust that was blown off was only the top layer which you can see in some of the shots. If the top layer was a different colour then you would have seen the effects of the engine much more. Each mission kicked up more or less dust too. it wasnt that consistent.Well for the way the dust was kicking up behind the lunar rover a crater would be expected, but isn't there?
Well my explanation is in the previous post.With the possible aldrin decending?, you mean when "somebody turned on the light?", pictures are inconsistant, and obviously they can keep the lights out of the shots, nothing convincing here.
You ask what the hell is a horse doing riding a motorbike.Yea but what if you hear hooves then a motorbike shows up?
You see thats were we differ. The amounts of people involved, the tracking of the flights. Even recently one of the stages of apollo 12 was found in a loose orbit around the moon. The science, the hours of footage and photos, the difference in what was expected and what was encountered. The list is longer on the yay side than the nay, but as I say thats just my take.The case that they went is much, much weaker.
*Interesting story that one. The radium girls who used to handpaint the dials. Many died horrible deaths. Interesting CT fodder too as the danger was denied for so long cos of big biz.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Mythbusters admitted they look similar, but there is a big difference.
Look at again at the part where they are comparing the jumps.
Now tell me what happens then they both land. What happens to both there feet.
Now tell me why would that happen to the Astronaut when he lands and not Jamie?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz5sfwyvAK0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DHQWvYfGKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeKs826uplM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23BIb_PMJ4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDybPDtsrY
Advertisement