Did we land on the moon?

[DarkHorseRacing]

Three men can keep a secret………if two are dead

No woman can keep a secret, alive or dead.

I don’t understand how women make good spies, the urge to tell someone they’re a spy must be uncontrollable.

 

[Bigbore500r]

Over the last 54 years, I was and still am surprised on how many Afro-American fellow employees I have, many with formal education, that strongly believe it was a hoax? I always assumed it was a cultural thing, well until today anyways.

But 100% of the people (aka Afro-American fellow employees) I have had in depth discussions about this subject all said if they had solid proof, like the Chinese, who are no giant fans of the USA confirming landing sites, etc., they would change their opinion. Well many have changed their opinion and now believe we went.

I find it rather weird that people actually do not believe we went to the moon.

I'm not convinced it was a hoax, but I do have a shred of doubt about the landings. Maybe because the idea is so incredible, and to this day - no other country has stepped foot on the moon. Sent a remote vehicle there? Yes - But im talking put a person there, walked around, made a video, waved to the camera and came back home.

Given the cold war of yesterday, and today's battles for technological supremacy, you would think there would be a 2nd, or a 3rd......right? All of technology has advanced by immeasurable leaps and bounds since then.......but the USA put the brakes on the moon after 6 landings and everybody else was like "you can have that, you win, congrats ..."

Then you look at the difficulties we have thru the 80's, 90's and 2000's with the Shuttle, simply coming and going from orbit.
It's serious business, even to this day.
Currently the private sector is sending people into what is contested to be "sub-orbital space", and test pilots are still dying, testing the vehicles being developed to get them JUST TO THERE.

It remains an incredibly dangerous business

With all of the technology available now, and the ability to easily send an unmanned satellite to orbit the moon - why can't we get good pics of all the junk we left behind? I can tell you that would shut me up.. Of course, with the technology available to day, our mind would then shift to "so is that a real photo"......

 

[rrrr]

With all of the technology available now, and the ability to easily send an unmanned satellite to orbit the moon - why can't we get good pics of all the junk we left behind? I can tell you that would shut me up.. Of course, with the technology available to day, our mind would then shift to "so is that a real photo"......

Hereya go...

NASA Unveils New Detailed Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Sites

NASA released new photos of the Apollo moon landing sites that were taken by the agency's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, an unmanned probe in orbit around the moon.

www.space.com

The photos were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched in 2009.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
LRO Illustration over Moon
The LRO Mission
At 5:32 p.m. EDT, June 18, 2009, an United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket roared off the launch pad at Launch Complex 41 to begin the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite missions to the moon. LRO entered lunar orbit on June 23, 2009 and after spacecraft commissioning, the Exploration Mission began on September 15, 2009. The Exploration Mission was focused on supporting the extension of human presence in the solar system, LRO continues to help identify sites close to potential resources with high scientific value, favorable terrain and the environment necessary for safe future robotic and human lunar missions. The Exploration Mission completed on September 15, 2010 when responsibility for LRO was transferred to NASA's Science Mission Directorate for a two-year Science Mission with a new set of science goals. The LRO mission has been extended to continue lunar science and exploration.

 

[Bigbore500r]

Hereya go...

NASA Unveils New Detailed Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Sites

NASA released new photos of the Apollo moon landing sites that were taken by the agency's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, an unmanned probe in orbit around the moon.

www.space.com

Looks like you googled the same thing I did before I posted......I did it just to see if anything new has been posted that sways me.
There isn't .

Google earth can give me a clear shot of my backyard, all my vehicles and.....that's purposefully limited on quality / distance for privacy concerns and federal guidelines for public satellite imagery. Now fathom this......

The photo you posted was taken from an orbit of 31 miles above the moons surface......
Google earth satellites average 370 MILES above the surface.

Intelligence satellites produce images like this.......

 

[rrrr]

I ran the the crew painting the Operation and Checkout Building. We got a couple of tours inside where Lockheed Martin build the Orion capsules for the Artemis project. Super cool. The Artemis rocket is bigger and more powerful than the Saturn 5. That’s saying something. Oh. And it’s a huge building. Lol View attachment 1234515 View attachment 1234516

It must have been a great experience working at the Cape. Thanks for the photos.

 

[paradise]

Looks like you googled the same thing I did before I posted......I did it just to see if anything new has been posted that sways me.
There isn't . That's all we get?

Google earth can give me a clear shot of my backyard, all my vehicles and.....that's purposefully limited on quality / distance for privacy concerns and federal guidelines for public satellite imagery

Intelligence satellites produce images like this....

Not to beat you up but this is an incredibly common and misunderstood concept. To make stuff fit on the page at reasonable scales most books show the earth and moon in relatively close proximity. The reality is that while most imaging satellites are ~320 miles above the surface of the earth, the moon is 240,000 miles away...

Common but Inaccurate

Accurate

To put that in perspective, if the earth were a standard school style globe (12 inch diameter) imaging satellites would be about 1 NICKEL thickness off the surface of the globe. The moon, on the other hand, would be 30+ FEET away from the surface of the globe... Even geosynchronous satellites like GPS that are "very" far from the earth would only be 2 1/2 feet off the surface.

With those scales in mind you can start to understand why you need a good reason to go to the moon vs just going to the ISS...

 

[rrrr]

Looks like you googled the same thing I did before I posted......I did it just to see if anything new has been posted that sways me.
There isn't . That's all we get?

Google earth can give me a clear shot of my backyard, all my vehicles and.....that's purposefully limited on quality / distance for privacy concerns and federal guidelines for public satellite imagery

Intelligence satellites produce images like this....

Intelligence satellites have huge cameras that have resolution of less than 12 inches. The LRO has other sensors onboard other than its camera. It wasn't built to prove there are six Apollo landing sites on the moon.

And for clarity, I only use Google searches to verify dates, and to provide accompanying information and links for the posts I make. Any informational or knowledge content that's the basis for what I post is already in my head. I've known about the LRO and those photos for over a decade.

 

[Bigbore500r]

Not to beat you up but this is an incredibly common and misunderstood concept. To make stuff fit on the page at reasonable scales most books show the earth and moon in relatively close proximity. The reality is that while most imaging satellites are ~320 miles above the surface of the earth, the moon is 240,000 miles away...

Common but Inaccurate

Accurate

To put that in perspective, if the earth were a standard school style globe (12 inch diameter) imaging satellites would be about 1 NICKEL thickness off the surface of the globe. The moon, on the other hand, would be 45 FEET away from the surface of the globe...

With those scales in mind you can start to understand why you need a good reason to go to the moon vs just going to the ISS...

Im aware of the distance, but my point was that we have satellites 31 miles above the surface of the moon, but can't get a photo of anything that remotely shows all of the history we left behind. Meanwhile, back on earth, we have satellites providing the general public photos of the earths surface with incredible detail.

Maybe the distance has something to do with limiting our ability to transmit / receive higher resolution images? Who knows.

I'm just saying - with all technology out there, seems wierd that NOBODY can produce a photo of anything worth looking at, not us, not any other country - NADA

To put it in perspective - Not only did we never go back, neither did anybody else try to go, and to boot......there's zero effort to get pictures with all of today's tech.
And maybe that's a case FOR the landings being real - if China or Russia could discredit it with photos, they most definitely would.....

 

[spectra3279]

Why haven't we been back in many years...this is the same NASA that retired the only spacecraft they had without a replacement.

That was due to oblamer turning nasa into a global warming agency

 

[SBMech]

Im aware of the distance, but my point was that we have satellites 31 miles above the surface of the moon, but can't get a photo of anything that remotely shows all of the history we left behind. Meanwhile, back on earth, we have satellites providing the general public photos of the earths surface with incredible detail.

Maybe the distance has something to do with limiting our ability to transmit / receive higher resolution images? Who knows.

I'm just saying - with all technology out there, seems wierd that NOBODY can produce a photo of anything worth looking at, not us, not any other country - NADA

To put it in perspective - Not only did we never go back, neither did anybody else try to go, and to boot......there's zero effort to get pictures with all of today's tech.
And maybe that's a case FOR the landings being real - if China or Russia could discredit it with photos, they most definitely would.....

Let me put my tinfoil hat on for a minute.....

There are popular myths concerning actual events ON THE SURFACE of the MOON during all of the actual landings.

From actual confrontations to flybys of "aliens", missing parts of recordings with the astronauts not knowing about the gap....weird things.

There is a popular fiction that the Moon is hollow....and that we were scared away.

Can you imagine the calamity if they actually did a high rez flyby and saw explicit damage and destruction to our gear left up there...absolutely proving some hostile activities by unknown entities?

The 10% of the planet who has time to give a single fuck about such things (not being bothered by simply getting enough food and water to sustain themselves and their families for the next day/week) might actually have a meltdown!

Ehh...food for thought.

 

[hallett21]

I just think it’s a fun topic lol.

Over the last 54 years, I was and still am surprised on how many Afro-American fellow employees I have, many with formal education, that strongly believe it was a hoax? I always assumed it was a cultural thing, well until today anyways.

But 100% of the people (aka Afro-American fellow employees) I have had in depth discussions about this subject all said if they had solid proof, like the Chinese, who are no giant fans of the USA confirming landing sites, etc., they would change their opinion. Well many have changed their opinion and now believe we went.

I find it rather weird that people actually do not believe we went to the moon.

But here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Sure seems like we could get some decent moon surface photos today with a passing by satellite lol.

 

[JJ McClure]

It must have been a great experience working at the Cape. Thanks for the photos.

Yep. It was a lot of fun at work. Background checks were next level. We did get to see many launches up close. Even a spacex landing. Video won’t load. Sorry

 

[rrrr]

But here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Sure seems like we could get some decent moon surface photos today with a passing by satellite lol.

View attachment 1234556 View attachment 1234557

The Mars photos were taken by a reconnaissance vehicle on the surface of Mars with a camera specifically made for taking high resolution photos at a distance of a few feet.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is orbiting the moon at an altitude of thirty miles, and its camera was built to take photos of possible landing sites for future missions. It was not designed to take high resolution photos of manmade stuff on the moon.

 

[hallett21]

The Mars photos were taken by a reconnaissance vehicle on the surface of Mars with a camera specifically made for taking high resolution photos at a distance of a few feet.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is orbiting the moon at an altitude of thirty miles, and its camera was built to take photos of possible landing sites for future missions. It was not designed to take high resolution photos of manmade stuff on the moon.

It’s interesting that we haven’t sent a similar vehicle to moon. You’d think we would have used the moon first to test the rovers etc. I think Mars is a 6 month mission and I believe the first rover died within minutes of operation.

 

[DaveH]

I just think it’s a fun topic lol.








But here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Sure seems like we could get some decent moon surface photos today with a passing by satellite lol.

View attachment 1234556 View attachment 1234557

if these are pictures are of mars and not just the upper basin of lake mead or powell i can see why there are skeptics with the poor qaulity pics of the moon comapred to what people see from google earth or images like this.

then i started thinking, ok how many millions would it cost to get a high res camera and satellite to moon orbit, but more importantly, how does someone monetize that like is done with google earth and other mapping software. i doubt there are many users willing to pay for high res moon photography.

but still........the damn hubble can take pics of galaxies a hundred light years away...yet you would think we could get just one shot of say......the electric moon car that was left behind. i would think with telescopes we have here on the ground we should be able to see something of that nature. the NASA could just tell everyone to STFU. oh wait they would probably turn around and say the picture is fake.

 

[rrrr]

It’s interesting that we haven’t sent a similar vehicle to moon. You’d think we would have used the moon first to test the rovers etc. I think Mars is a 6 month mission and I believe the first rover died within minutes of operation.

A lander sent to the moon by a Japanese consortium crashed during descent in April. The LRO, the same vehicle that captured photos of Apollo mission equipment on the moon in 2009, sent photos of the crash site back to NASA.

Space exploration is hard.


In late April, a privately-owned Japanese lunar lander failed in its attempt to land on the Moon, crashing on the lunar surface to never be heard from again. Although we may not have seen the lander’s final moments, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured an overhead view of the spacecraft’s crash site, revealing the point of impact surrounded by scattered debris.

NASA's Lunar Orbiter Captures Heartbreaking Views of Japanese Lander Crash Site

The Hakuto-R Mission 1 crashed on the Moon in April, failing to become the first private lunar lander to safely touch down on the surface.

gizmodo.com

And from the link, a description of the LRO camera. This explains why the photos of the lunar surface it takes aren't very precise.

Using its Narrow Angle Cameras, NASA’s lunar orbiter covers a region that spans across approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) by 28 miles (45 kilometers).

 

[Orange Juice]

 

[kurtis500]

so the chicoms are there now.........big deal. even the russians many years back.......

taking humans to the moon is a much more complex and difficult to achieve. yet we did this in 1969. not only did we do it more then 50 years ago.......we did it with technology that was prevalent during that time period. visiting Canaveral is a mind blowing experience looking at the hardware we had back then........

the point is....the rest of the world is still catching up and has a long way to go.

point is, the chinese have directly observed the Apollo landing sites.

I see no reason to be back on the moon anytime soon. Been there, done that. Nothing is pressing to get back up there

 

[Bigbore500r]

I just think it’s a fun topic lol.








But here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Sure seems like we could get some decent moon surface photos today with a passing by satellite lol.

View attachment 1234556 View attachment 1234557

Amazing what we can do on Mars, but not the moon eh?

NASA be like - "Check it out, you can see the Lunar Landing site"

 

[Bigbore500r]

A lander sent to the moon by a Japanese consortium crashed during descent in April. The LRO, the same vehicle that captured photos of Apollo mission equipment on the moon in 2009, sent photos of the crash site back to NASA.

Space exploration is hard.


In late April, a privately-owned Japanese lunar lander failed in its attempt to land on the Moon, crashing on the lunar surface to never be heard from again. Although we may not have seen the lander’s final moments, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured an overhead view of the spacecraft’s crash site, revealing the point of impact surrounded by scattered debris.

NASA's Lunar Orbiter Captures Heartbreaking Views of Japanese Lander Crash Site

The Hakuto-R Mission 1 crashed on the Moon in April, failing to become the first private lunar lander to safely touch down on the surface.

gizmodo.com

And from the link, a description of the LRO camera. This explains why the photos of the lunar surface it takes aren't very precise.

Using its Narrow Angle Cameras, NASA’s lunar orbiter covers a region that spans across approximately 25 miles (40 kilometers) by 28 miles (45 kilometers).

Or is it.....

 

[LazyLavey]

I mean, look at all the problems Tom Hanks had. Fuck that shit

 

[Bigbore500r]

point is, the chinese have directly observed the Apollo landing sites.

I see no reason to be back on the moon anytime soon. Been there, done that. Nothing is pressing to get back up there

Did they take any pics? lol

They take pics of everything!

Cmon man...

 

[rrrr]

Why haven't we been back in many years...this is the same NASA that retired the only spacecraft they had without a replacement.

The space shuttle was an economic disaster that utterly failed to provide the launch economies NASA hyped to Congress. Not only that, it was an unsafe vehicle, as the loss of two shuttles and fourteen astronauts proved.

Congress cut off funding for the program when the cost of each launch approached $2 billion. While Uncle Joe has desensitized the American public to the value of money, $2 billion is a lot of cheese.

 

[rrrr]

View attachment 1234613

That was.a hilarious show. Even back then Hanks was a great actor.

 

[DaveH]

point is, the chinese have directly observed the Apollo landing sites.

I see no reason to be back on the moon anytime soon. Been there, done that. Nothing is pressing to get back up there

i agree, there is nothing to be had going to the moon.

the only feasible reason to be there is to use it as a base for a launching point for deeper space missions. its a ton easier to get payload going starting from nearly 0g.

as for the shuttle being cancelled, i highly doubt it was cancelled without a better replacement already being operational. not that we would know about it.

 

[Lunatic Fringe]

Theres absolutely no reason to go to the moon again. Nothing there, nothing to do, nothing to bring back and prohibitvely expensive.

Kind of like Disneyland, yet people still go.

 

[530RL]

It’s interesting that we haven’t sent a similar vehicle to moon. You’d think we would have used the moon first to test the rovers etc. I think Mars is a 6 month mission and I believe the first rover died within minutes of operation.

I doubt it is very much more than marginally cheaper to send a rover to the moon as it is to Mars. The rover would have to have basically the same capabilities to make the trip worthwhile. Not like they could design and build a Yugo version of a Rover with some left over R&D money.

So either we were already at the moon and those in charge say what’s the point, or everyone is in on it and keep their mouths shut?

 

[hallett21]

I doubt it is very much more than marginally cheaper to send a rover to the moon as it is to Mars. The rover would have to have basically the same capabilities to make the trip worthwhile. Not like they could design and build a Yugo version of a Rover with some left over R&D money.

So either we were already at the moon and those in charge say what’s the point, or everyone is in on it and keep their mouths shut?

My guess is that we did legitimately go to the moon. But I think the footage and photos are questionable.

Manually adjusting focus and aperture on the cameras with no viewfinder would be really hard. But then to get some of the photos they got is like winning the lotto lol.

Also some of the footage of the Apollo moon walks are clearly altered. The one where one astronaut falls and miraculously rises with one leg off the ground is just not possible.

Then the footage of Neil and Buzz compared to Apollo 16 or 17 where they are jumping behind objects like they are on a trampoline lol.

Photos of the lunar module with zero dust on the landing feet is another head scratcher.

Michael Collins was first interviewed saying he never saw stars while on the moon. But he never was on the moon lol. Then he went on to write a book and he describes how beautiful the stars were. I’m not saying the whole thing was a hoax but we are missing some information.

 

[hallett21]

I doubt it is very much more than marginally cheaper to send a rover to the moon as it is to Mars. The rover would have to have basically the same capabilities to make the trip worthwhile. Not like they could design and build a Yugo version of a Rover with some left over R&D money.

So either we were already at the moon and those in charge say what’s the point, or everyone is in on it and keep their mouths shut?

Also we are putting the moon landing on a pedestal saying how difficult it was. But chucking a robot exponentially further, operating it on another planet and sending photos back is just another Tuesday lol.

 

[SBMech]

Also we are putting the moon landing on a pedestal saying how difficult it was. But chucking a robot exponentially further, operating it on another planet and sending photos back is just another Tuesday lol.

Telling ya, We've got a black eye from the moon, what the actual story is, you and I don't have the clearance....

 

[RVR SWPR]

There should be no doubt United States Astronaut walked on the moon July 20,1969. Unfortunately I’m old enough to remember that day as millions of us watched history.
If I had time I would research and answer all your Questions Hallett. Over the years you have contributed almost 15k interesting Posts. Sorry you even question & consider NASA so fucked up they faked moon landing.

 

[rrrr]

Also we are putting the moon landing on a pedestal saying how difficult it was. But chucking a robot exponentially further, operating it on another planet and sending photos back is just another Tuesday lol.

It's another TLDR post, but I don't have anything else to do. Read it if you wish.

Orbital mechanics, which consider the orbit of the target, its gravitational field, the shape of its orbit, its distance from the sun, earth, and other planets at the time of launch, and the gravitational effects of the sun, earth, and other planets as they orbit while the vehicle is in transit are well known and can be computed with incredible precision.

Once a vehicle has been launched, it's going to hit its target, whether it's the moon or any of the seven planets (in case you didn't know, Pluto is no longer considered a planet). The difference in sending a vehicle to the moon or to Mars is simply mass at launch, math, and transit time.

Photos transmitted through space are a matter of camera optics, available bandwidth, and time. The Cassini probe, launched some years ago, sent back stunning images of Saturn's rings that equalled the beauty of the Perseverance photos. It took ten hours to transmit the largest files IIRC.

It's pretty easy to see the Apollo missions were exponentially more complex than today's Mars missions. The Saturn V rocket that lifted the Apollo missions to the moon weighed 6.2 million pounds at launch. It carried humans to the moon and back, and it was an incredible achievement using 1960s technology that cost the equivalent of roughly $150 billion and employed 400,000 people.

The Perseverance Rover, which sent those detailed Mars photos back to earth, weighed about 2,000 pounds. It was launched in 2020 with an Atlas V, a rocket weighing less than 20% than the Saturn V. The number of people employed by contractors, NASA, and JPL that built and launched it was probably in the mid thousands. I had to look up this one, the mission cost $2.5 billion. That's about 1.7% of Apollo's cost.

 

[4Waters]

I just think it’s a fun topic lol.








But here are some photos of the surface of Mars. Sure seems like we could get some decent moon surface photos today with a passing by satellite lol.

View attachment 1234556 View attachment 1234557

That's Universal Studios stage 36

 

[Flying_Lavey]

we have left orbit....just n

not with humans.

why? distance. people forget just how VAST space really is. think about 6 month trip one way to Mars. the food, oxygen, water etc to support one person for a YEAR........untill we can figure out a way to travel these distances and much higher speeds, its never going to happen. then even if you could attain these speeds the G forces to do so, the human body will never live through them.

Start slow and accelerate at a rate the human body can tolerate and then decelerate at the other end the same way. You can’t make the whole trip at high speeds but you can spend some of it at those speeds.

You guys do realize G-force in the construct that we experience it here is almost eliminated in space right? Nothing pushing against the body in opposition besides inertia. There is no atmosphere nor gravity of a planet fighting against the acceleration.

There is still a limit, sure. But nobody knows what that is

 

[530RL]

Also we are putting the moon landing on a pedestal saying how difficult it was. But chucking a robot exponentially further, operating it on another planet and sending photos back is just another Tuesday lol.

Yep

Three observations.

I believe we landed on the moon as my father worked on the program when I was a child and we lived in Daytona Beach, but I have no idea how to convince a non believer.

If we didn’t land on the moon, I have no idea how any group with that many people could keep such a conspiracy secret. And who paid my dad to work from 63 until 68?

And lastly even if it is a big conspiracy, such a conspiracy can in no way change or affect my life today so why should I give a shit?

 

[rrrr]

You guys do realize G-force in the construct that we experience it here is almost eliminated in space right? Nothing pushing against the body in opposition besides inertia. There is no atmosphere nor gravity of a planet fighting against the acceleration.

There is still a limit, sure. But nobody knows what that is

Are you speaking of acceleration limits?

The limits are known, Einstein's 1915 treatise on General and Special Relativity established that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. General relativity also proved that a gravitational field and acceleration are indistinguishable from each other.

Acceleration is an increase in velocity over time, and if time is infinite, the velocity cannot exceed the speed of light. Theoretically if an object could accelerate to the speed of light, it would gain mass, almost infinitely, and time would slow to a stop.

Constant acceleration, not constant speed, in the vacuum of space would feel like being a gravitational field. The force would be dependent on the rate of acceleration.

For someone in a spaceship to feel acceleration that equals Earth's gravitational field, it would have to constantly increase its speed 32 feet per second every second. After a certain amount of time, it would be traveling at the rate of one light year per year squared. Physics limit further increases, and there would be the issue of interstellar matter like cosmic ray particles, which would create issues I don't know about.

Don't ask me to do the math.

 

[was thatguy]

 

[Racey]

I thought they filmed in Burbank lol.



I just don’t understand why/how we visited the moon multiple times using basic algebra. And now today with all of the tech that we have, we have not been back. Nor has any other country to my knowledge?

There’s either something really scary up there, absolutely nothing worth visiting or we never went.

Edit. I am incorrect. The Russians have also been.

It's expensive as fuck and little benefit to us after yhe initial landing and expiriments done.

Now and going forward it could serve as a base to launch interplanetary missions as we could have fuel depots and bases and it's much easier to escape orbit from the moons low gravity.

In the 60s and 70s we initiated experiments on moon distance, seismic activity, soils, etc and that led to a good amount of data and understanding about bigger picture things.

If we faked the moon landing during the peak of the cold war, do you think that would happen in secret of the soviets? It would have been the greatest piece of propaganda they were ever gifted

 

[Racey]

Looks like you googled the same thing I did before I posted......I did it just to see if anything new has been posted that sways me.
There isn't .

Google earth can give me a clear shot of my backyard, all my vehicles and.....that's purposefully limited on quality / distance for privacy concerns and federal guidelines for public satellite imagery. Now fathom this......

The photo you posted was taken from an orbit of 31 miles above the moons surface......
Google earth satellites average 370 MILES above the surface.

Intelligence satellites produce images like this.......

No, the google earth photos you see zoomed in are not taken from space, they are taken from slow moving civilian style airplanes with pretty inexpensive cameras and altitudes under 18k., This is why many regions of un populated or remote areas have poor imaging, the imaging from satellite in space

 

[MPHSystems]

Holocaust happened.

Did it, though?

 

[Roosky01]

Did it, though?

And we are off!

I believe there was an actual program, but the number of 6 million is just off the wall batshit crazy and lends credence to those who question it's existence.

 

[badgas]

I'm pretty sure we've been.

I mean even Dr. Evil said " space was cool "

 

[Ziggy]

Did they take any pics? lol

They take pics of everything!

Cmon man...

View attachment 1234614

Stick to your ICE expertise Jerry. Let the rocket scientist specialize in space.

 

[rrrr]

And we are off!

I believe there was an actual program, but the number of 6 million is just off the wall batshit crazy and lends credence to those who question it's existence.

No, it's not. Between May 1 and July 15, 1944, the Nazis deported 440,000 Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz-Birkinau death camp in Poland and gassed them.

When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the killing of Jews began. It continued until April 1945, as the Allies approached Berlin. That five years and six months gave the Nazis plenty of time to kill the other 5,560,000.

 

[D19]

Space exploration is all a load of crap.

Those rockets get launched without anyone in them and they land in ocean. Notice how they go sides ways and not straight up every time?

All a tax payer Jack.

 

[D19]

No, the google earth photos you see zoomed in are not taken from space, they are taken from slow moving civilian style airplanes with pretty inexpensive cameras and altitudes under 18k., This is why many regions of un populated or remote areas have poor imaging, the imaging from satellite in space

Yes. Also notice how the photos don’t have clouds? You mean to tell me that satellite cameras from space have the ability to take photos through clouds? Lol

All of NASAs earth images are photoshopped. They’ve admitted it.

 

[rrrr]

Space exploration is all a load of crap.

Those rockets get launched without anyone in them and they land in ocean. Notice how they go sides ways and not straight up every time?

All a tax payer Jack.

They "go sides ways" because that inclines the rocket for the required elevation and azimuth to attain the desired orbit around Earth.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

Are you speaking of acceleration limits?

The limits are known, Einstein's 1915 treatise on General and Special Relativity established that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. General relativity also proved that a gravitational field and acceleration are indistinguishable from each other.

Acceleration is an increase in velocity over time, and if time is infinite, the velocity cannot exceed the speed of light. Theoretically if an object could accelerate to the speed of light, it would gain mass, almost infinitely, and time would slow to a stop.

Constant acceleration, not constant speed, in the vacuum of space would feel like being a gravitational field. The force would be dependent on the rate of acceleration.

For someone in a spaceship to feel acceleration that equals Earth's gravitational field, it would have to constantly increase its speed 32 feet per second every second. After a certain amount of time, it would be traveling at the rate of one light year per year squared. Physics limit further increases, and there would be the issue of interstellar matter like cosmic ray particles, which would create issues I don't know about.

Don't ask me to do the math.

The arrogance of our species...

all these theories are based on what we know. Just 120 years ago, we first took to the air. If a species were say....just 1,000 years more advanced, what might be possible? Why are Einsteins theories considered absolutes? Then how about 100,000 years more advanced?

If you watch some Bob Lazar stuff and his "circumstances" around anti-gravity drives, you see what might be possible. If its real or not? who's to say. I personally think he's credible.

 

[D19]

They "go sides ways" because that inclines the rocket for the required elevation and azimuth to attain the desired orbit around Earth.

Ya I’ve heard that however they same people claim the earth spins faster than the speed of light, yet a man made rocket can out pace that to get out and back in. Makes no sense when you really think about it.

 

[RVR SWPR]

No, it's not. Between May 1 and July 15, 1944, the Nazis deported 440,000 Hungarian Jews to the Auschwitz-Birkinau death camp in Poland and gassed them.

When Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, the killing of Jews began. It continued until April 1945, as the Allies approached Berlin. That five years and six months gave the Nazis plenty of time to kill the other 5,560,000.

Correct