[+]polydog650 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]polydog650 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Your link relies entirely on distracting conspiracy theorists with ancient flashy animated graphics and pretty images. Other than that, we have an overanalysis on some calculations, many of which are silly. The first example I happen upon of them trying to prove something wrong is with "Their thrusters started at 10% during landing but ended at 40%!" And try to act as if this is some smoking gun, when of course, the thruster would be increased. They act as if because the difference would have to be gradual, it wouldn't be this massive, but the report doesn't try to claim that output jumped super fast between these two variables. The thrust being at 40% at the end isn't even half of the thrust potential. A lot of bullshit is spat within this short of a paragraph.
If NASA really did have the resources to fake the moon landing, and somehow have incredibly advanced CG before it was even available to enterprise applications, how the fuck would they even get simple calculations wrong on something as simple as documentation of the flight? What, they poured all of their scammy satanic budget into the first part of the operation (making the public believe that humans landed on the moon) and ran out in the report stage, instead handing operations over to George the intern, who only has a vague knowledge of the satanic science lies that NASA made up or some shit? And where did the rocket go, if it didn't go outside of the atmosphere? How would nobody see where it landed?
[–] polydog65 ago (edited ago)
Your link relies entirely on distracting conspiracy theorists with ancient flashy animated graphics and pretty images. Other than that, we have an overanalysis on some calculations, many of which are silly. The first example I happen upon of them trying to prove something wrong is with "Their thrusters started at 10% during landing but ended at 40%!" And try to act as if this is some smoking gun, when of course, the thruster would be increased. They act as if because the difference would have to be gradual, it wouldn't be this massive, but the report doesn't try to claim that output jumped super fast between these two variables. The thrust being at 40% at the end isn't even half of the thrust potential. A lot of bullshit is spat within this short of a paragraph.
If NASA really did have the resources to fake the moon landing, and somehow have incredibly advanced CG before it was even available to enterprise applications, how the fuck would they even get simple calculations wrong on something as simple as documentation of the flight? What, they poured all of their scammy satanic budget into the first part of the operation (making the public believe that humans landed on the moon) and ran out in the report stage, instead handing operations over to George the intern, who only has a vague knowledge of the satanic science lies that NASA made up or some shit? And where did the rocket go, if it didn't go outside of the atmosphere? How would nobody see where it landed?
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)