If THIS aint a clear ADMISSION THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!!!!

its bullshit for the simple fact like 40yrs later they cant do that shit again.

good point, IF, and I do mean IF, they really did go to the moon and rease the video, why not send somebody else up there and get a newer better technologically advanced video, instead of spending $230,000 to remaster some old shit.
 
funny you should say that :lol:

I can't find the direct quote but I have heard it multiple times (again its not substantiated evidence).


basically according to a old rumor, former NASA Astronaut Neil Armstrong told those close to him that aliens have a base on the Moon (on the dark side which never faces Earth) and told us in no uncertain terms to get off and stay off the Moon.

The fact that there were a few more trips to the moon after that shows we're either hard headed or its nonsense. BUT, multiple astronauts have said publicly that their craft was tracked and followed on occasion by unexplained objects/phenomenon.

again just some shit I read awhile back.

Since you went there, I also read in a conspiracy book called The Universal Seduction, that when they landed they saw spacecraft with US Air Force insignia and they were pissed.:confused:
 
Yep that's what the book said. The spacecraft greeted them as soon as they landed.:smh: The astronauts were like why didn't you tell us you had this technology? Not my words just the book's.:hmm:

:lol::lol::lol:

I can see it now, Neil and Buzz looking salty as fuck as they hopped back to their elaborately painted flying trash can and flew back to Earth with the sole purpose of crashing their lunar lander into anything remotely resembling an official government building.
 
:lol::lol::lol:

I can see it now, Neil and Buzz looking salty as fuck as they hopped back to their elaborately painted flying trash can and flew back to Earth with the sole purpose of crashing their lunar lander into anything remotely resembling an official government building.


Hell yeah.:lol::lol:
 
:lol::lol::lol:

I can see it now, Neil and Buzz looking salty as fuck as they hopped back to their elaborately painted flying trash can and flew back to Earth with the sole purpose of crashing their lunar lander into anything remotely resembling an official government building.

^^^LOL!!!

Wildin'!

 
Just putting this out there...Why do you all assume a terrestrial or past reason for them faking the moon landing or actually going there? were the rumors of the fake moon landing created by those in control for misdirection purposes? If some of you older gents may remember, every time they went into space during the 60's to 80's it rained for days. Now it doesn't. Why? Are there earth artifacts (just rumors)that point to somethings being on the moon that we will need? The capstone that went on the Great Pyramid? What about a non human base? What about an ancient human base? Do we have more advanced technology than the Govt lets on? Are the super powers saber rattling to make it look good? How about if they are all in it together? Just because we assume that Russia and China ( and others) are a threat or in competition to us, doesn't mean they are. Misdirection is a MF'er.

was thinkin the same shit.

De-Streh, I'm on the fence...

There was a time when I was leaning heavily towards the possibility that we haven't been there.

But in recent years, I'm not so sure...


I've seen the documentary of the attempts to interview astronauts (regarding their moon visits) which resulted in the host almost getting his ass kicked because the astronauts were so hush-hush. Suspicious to say the least.

:yes::yes:

I know there were questionable camera angles and footage that doesn't coincide with gravity/ space and whatever.

:yes:

I've seen footage of discrepancies that appear as if the shit was shot in a studio...

:yes:

Like I've said, I'm somewhat undecided. Because on the flip:

- I'm sure we have technology that hasn't been exposed to the public.

- NASA may just be a "front piece".
(There are those who've confiscated Tesla's blueprints & works and shit. So why is NASA still using rockets?)


Ya'll didnt see the commercial that the army was runnin alittle while ago, talkin bout how their space program was better than nasas:eek:



- You know as well as I that in this society, disinformation rules...



I'll revisit a very interesting quote posted in your thread:


The stuff this brother said (That I bolded) reflects my sentiments now almost exactly.


I'm not going to input an opinion on this one. But I would like to spice things up a bit. Is this video real? (it was extracted from another documentary).
Because I don't know, BGOL help me out:








P.S. BTW, I'm pretty sure I think I know why you've brought up this topic... ;)


I was just about to post a version of that video
if i can find it i'll post it
 
Some jackass said that space is a vacuum, so if you went to the moon, you'd get sucked into space.

Just FYI for cats that DON'T know why that is dumb as fuck...

  • Vaccum of space = no atmosphere, void
  • Vacuum cleaner = device that sucks dead roaches out of your carpet

Another cat said there IS no space because we actually live IN the Earth not on it. Apparently the entire concept of astrology/ astrophysics is a hoax. Apparently, the "sun" and "moon" are just reflections off the "ceiling" of the cave we live in inside the Earth.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


How do these mufukkas have time to remember to breathe using their limited brain capacity to think up shit like this.

We are all on the same side. Some need to stop feeling so associated with the situation and take a step back. Everything is questionable even down to the fact that you are never ever touching anything else (quantum physics). The Oceans have more depth(no pun intended) than the land masses of Earth and the moon entire. I state this to say very simply that we are arguing over unknowns rather than investigating ourselves. If they did go to the moon and found lost cities or robots or whatever, do you think they would tell the public?Letting you believe this is a hoax is good business. Letting you believe they went to the moon is good business(especially if they went to Mars).DISINFORMATION people!! I don't think they are telling the whole truth.Peace!
 
Since you went there, I also read in a conspiracy book called The Universal Seduction, that when they landed they saw spacecraft with US Air Force insignia and they were pissed.:confused:

Yep that's what the book said. The spacecraft greeted them as soon as they landed.:smh: The astronauts were like why didn't you tell us you had this technology? Not my words just the book's.:hmm:

:lol::lol::dance::dance:


Shit I'd be pissed too!!!:lol:


NASA was like. "Oh yeah,,,,,,,, That......... Ummmm?? Yeah, um that's just Majestic I mean Air Force Space Command:rolleyes:..:lol:

200px-Air_Force_Space_Command.png


Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) is a major command of the United States Air Force. AFSPC is headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base Colorado. Its current commander is General C. Robert "Bob" Kehler.

Approximately 40,000 people, including 25,400 active-duty military and civilians, and 14,000 contractor employees, combine to perform AFSPC missions. Those 25,400 active-duty personnel are divided into approximately 7,100 military employees and 18,300 civilian employees, although their missions overlap.

AFSPC contributes to United States deterrence through its intercontinental ballistic missile force and plays a vital role tying together and supporting the U.S. military worldwide through the use of many different types of satellites and other space operations.

On October 6, 2008, it was announced that the ballistic missile mission will be transferred to the new Air Force Global Strike Command. At the same time, it was also announced that AFSPC will gain the cyber warfare mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
 
:lol::lol::lol:

I can see it now, Neil and Buzz looking salty as fuck as they hopped back to their elaborately painted flying trash can and flew back to Earth with the sole purpose of crashing their lunar lander into anything remotely resembling an official government building.

:lol::lol::lol:


:lol::lol::dance::dance:


Shit I'd be pissed too!!!:lol:


NASA was like. "Oh yeah,,,,,,,, That......... Ummmm?? Yeah, um that's just Majestic I mean Air Force Space Command:rolleyes:..:lol:

200px-Air_Force_Space_Command.png




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command

thats what i was talkin about:yes:
hidden in plain sight.......
 

Bill Cooper and a few others tried to speak out about this
Everybody been worried about that new collider out in switzerland forming a black hole and eatin a chunk of the planet, when we should be worried about that thing is being seen by any aliens for what it could really be
a land based particle cannon

Here are the new pics that NASA released at the press conference today that supposedly prove we landed there several times:smh:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

Really? nasa. Maybe yall can make something out of them..looks like pics from a damn camera phone to me. The fuck they doing with all the tax payer money?:smh:


yeah those are some sorry ass pics
but the commits are just sad:smh:
People get their identities all wrapped up and tangled in things that only concern them to the extent that they are at best passive observers
But if someone challenges their poorly conceived notions of reality
they fight tooth and nail for something they have no stake in and defend people who would just as easily throw them under a bus to save their own asses


ok enough ramblin for me
 
i don't know if anybody mentioned this and i haven't read through all the posts
but wouldn't russia know if we had went to the moon or not i mean they were the
first country to explore space weren't they ?
 
SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
:hmm:
 
i don't know if anybody mentioned this and i haven't read through all the posts
but wouldn't russia know if we had went to the moon or not i mean they were the
first country to explore space weren't they ?

U gotta read a few more of the post fam, a few others covrered that
but one thing they didnt mention was that who would believe russia or china if they came out an said we didnt go. If they said it back then it would be dismissed as propaganda and if they said it now most people would just say it was bullshit

SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

:eek:

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

:eek:

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

Really? didnt know that

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Thats a good F'in question. U'd think they'd put a big ass US flag up there so everybody on the planet could see it wit the naked eye

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

them camera angle stuff does sound weird but they coulda had a tripod or something:dunno:

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
:hmm:

I've heard that last one a few times before and all the believers seem to ignore it as much as possible

ask this dude,he knows,fuck you think they're so smart(space air to the brain)

:lol: MK should know shouldn't he
him an his buddies peobably were the ones that told neil an them to go home an dont come back:lol:
 
SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
:hmm:
all the dumbfucks in this thread who don't think there are any shenanigans behind this shit should be forced to repeat this to themselves 1,000,000 times at gunpoint.
 
Common Sense vs Scientific knowledge...

from http://www.clavius.org/site.html

NASA had to produce an ostensibly viable lunar landing program or else risk losing $30 billion in U.S. taxpayer money.

In fact almost all that money went to the contractors who built the equipment. NASA itself doesn't build spaceships. It hires companies to build spaceships for it.

But this division of labor presents a problem for conspiracy theorists. We start with the premise that NASA wanted the public to believe it actually succeeded in landing astronauts on the moon. This is common to all conspiracy theories. Also common to nearly all theories is the assertion that no such landing took place.

The most foolproof way of convincing somebody that you did something is to actually do it. Nothing is more convincing than the truth. So if NASA had to falsify the landings, that implies that (for whatever reasons) it was impossible to actually do it. So all conspiracy theories asserting that no lunar landing took place must argue that falsifying the lunar landing was easier than actually accomplishing it.

But how to deal with those pesky contractors? I see three basic scenarios: the Huge Conspiracy Scenario, the Absolute Minimum Scenario, and the Need-To-Know Scenario.

Detailed here: http://www.clavius.org/scale.html

The lunar module's descent engine should have dug a huge crater in the lunar surface.

I have yet to see a conspiracist who has given any kind of quantifiable justification for this belief. We could simply ask, "Why do you expect a crater?" and probably be done with it. A few have made vague references to other vehicles in other situations that produce some kind of visible interaction with the soil underneath them. But none can explain why that ought to be immediately generalized to include the lunar module.

The Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, for example, didn't produce any craters. And it directed even more downward thrust than the lunar module. Harrier jets and large helicopters routinely produce vast amounts of downward thrust without leaving large craters behind.

He goes on to refute it with physics... http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html

The lunar module's descent engine produced 10,000 pounds (4,550 kgf) of thrust. Surely 10,000 pounds of pressure is enough to dig a very large hole.

Basic Newtonian physics solves this problem.

"Weight" is simply the force of gravity between two masses. If something weighs a certain amount on earth, that's the same as saying a force of that amount exists between the earth and the object. The force of gravity is computed partly by multiplying the masses of the two objects in question. The moon has only a fraction of the mass of the earth, and so exerts much less gravity. The force between the moon and that same object would be only 1/6 as much.

The Apollo 12 lunar module, for example, had a mass of 33,325 lbm (15,148 kg) fully loaded. On earth gravity would exert a force of 33,325 lbf on that spacecraft. But near the end of the descent it was not fully loaded. Most of the descent engine (DPS) propellant had been burned away. Fortunately there are ample references to how much DPS propellant was consumed. We can therefore calculate the weight of the lunar module very accurately as it neared touchdown. According to telemetry, 705 lbm (320 kg) of DPS propellants remained from an initial load of 18,226 lbm (8,285 kg).[Reports12] This means at touchdown the lunar module had shed at least 17,521 lbm (7,964 kg) by burning its descent fuel. Subtracting this from the launch mass gives a landing mass of 15,804 lbm (7,184 kg).

Earth's gravity would exert a force of 15,804 lbf on that mass, but the moon's gravity exerts only one-sixth that much: 2,634 lbf.

So in order to negate the downward force of 2,634 lbf we merely have to apply an upward force of the same magnitude. Therefore a thrust of 2,634 lbf was required to hover or descent at a constant rate.

Yes, it really is that easy.

This describes the situation seconds before touchdown. The initial descent was of course very fast. And so to slow the rate of descent it would have been necessary to apply a larger thrust that surpasses the force of gravity. This amount of thrust was applied at high altitude where it did not affect the lunar surface.

By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.

He pretty much debinks all of the conspiracy points. And he even answers who he is...
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

# The webmaster, Jay Windley, has been trained as an engineer and has worked in various industries including aerospace. He studied mechanical engineering and computer science at Kansas State University (BSCS), and engineering design and computer science at the University of Utah. At the latter institution he did graduate work using their advanced manufacturing laboratory and for the associated corporate spin-off Engineering Geometry Systems. This group provided design and testing support to major aerospace contractors as well as the U.S. Department of Defense. He currently works as a systems engineer developing high-performance computers and supercomputing applications for customers such as Boeing, Northrup-Grumman, and Airbus.
# Windley has been acknowledged as an expert in the technical history of Apollo and has consulted with several authors including Arthur C. Clark, Ed Mitchell, and his comments have appeared in The New York Times Magazine and Metropole. Many of his professional mentors were engineers on the Apollo project and have offered personal insights on many of these questions, and have arranged access to materials and machinery not otherwise easily available.

So refute this stuff with facts, not "common sense".
 
SPACE ODDITIES:

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
:hmm:

Every one of these debunked here...http://www.clavius.org/
 
Folks here do release that there was no videotape or even video technology as there is today, right?? They used prototype cameras and complex techniques. The transmission and recording of pictures (actually, just the filming of brief snippets of the shaky transmission) from the moon was an extremely complicated and convuluted process that was extremely fragile (and expensive) in terms of preservation.
 
If it was fake, Russia would have blown that shit out of the water IMMEDIATELY and if it WAS fake, best believe Cold War Russia would have known.
What if you found out that the cold war was fake? This shit is so far over your heads that you can never find out what is false and what is true. I don't find going to the Moon in the 60's that hard to believe though. It's harder for me to believe that they are actually able to send probes that travel through outerspace for 5 years all the way to Mars and then use remote control to move it around and collect samples when it gets there. I want someone to show me those same kind of probes scouring the earths ocean floors. I'm always hearing how so much of the Earths untold history is under water. It should be real easy to find out everything about Earth if they can send shit all the way to Mars. Does anyone remember that they were planning to announce significant finding last year on Mars, but then became hush-hush about it?
 
What if you found out that the cold war was fake? This shit is so far over your heads that you can never find out what is false and what is true. I don't find going to the Moon in the 60's that hard to believe though. It's harder for me to believe that they are actually able to send probes that travel through outerspace for 5 years all the way to Mars and then use remote control to move it around and collect samples when it gets there. I want someone to show me those same kind of probes scouring the earths ocean floors. I'm always hearing how so much of the Earths untold history is under water. It should be real easy to find out everything about Earth if they can send shit all the way to Mars. Does anyone remember that they were planning to announce significant finding last year on Mars, but then became hush-hush about it?
hell yea, im glad this thread created such good discussion despite the dickheads who wanna attack. but you made a great point about that cold war shit, because it WAS fuckin fake! it's so obvious to those of discernment. this world is run by a very select few and all those are in positions of power or behind the curtain behind every government and they all play the roles they are assigned. and you made another great point about the lack of undersea exploration because no atmosphere on any other planet could be any easier to penetrate than our own ocean here. the fact is, the belief systems that control most of this stupid crop of humans would be shattered if the truth was totally revealed about earth. i am firm believe that is is obvious this planet is not a sphere. it's not "flat" either, but it's not a fucking sphere with water magically clinging to the ocean.
 
It's harder for me to believe that they are actually able to send probes that travel through outerspace for 5 years all the way to Mars and then use remote control to move it around and collect samples when it gets there.

Mars?

Shit there's been one on Titan since 2005.

Huygens_surface_color.jpg


I don't see why it's so hard to believe though.

i am firm believe that is is obvious this planet is not a sphere. it's not "flat" either, but it's not a fucking sphere with water magically clinging to the ocean.

The word you're looking for is Oblate, and the ocean or anything else isn't "magically" clinging to the Earth. It's called Gravity. :smh:
 
Mars?

Shit there's been one on Titan since 2005.

Huygens_surface_color.jpg


I don't see why it's so hard to believe though.



The word you're looking for is Oblate, and the ocean or anything else isn't "magically" clinging to the Earth. It's called Gravity. :smh:
gravity huh? fuck outta here with that shit. i don't buy the notion that gravity keeps the water from falling off the sides of a sphere.
 
hell yea, im glad this thread created such good discussion despite the dickheads who wanna attack. but you made a great point about that cold war shit, because it WAS fuckin fake! it's so obvious to those of discernment. this world is run by a very select few and all those are in positions of power or behind the curtain behind every government and they all play the roles they are assigned. and you made another great point about the lack of undersea exploration because no atmosphere on any other planet could be any easier to penetrate than our own ocean here. the fact is, the belief systems that control most of this stupid crop of humans would be shattered if the truth was totally revealed about earth. i am firm believe that is is obvious this planet is not a sphere. it's not "flat" either, but it's not a fucking sphere with water magically clinging to the ocean.

So, Africa is fake, Antartica is fake, Barack is fake, Australia is fake, MLK was fake, Kennedy was fake, the pyramids are fake, ancient Rome was fake, everything you have not seen with your own eyes is fake?

Or do you only pick and choose what is fake and what is not based on your own uninformed sense of knowledge?

As far as deep sea exploration, here's some info on Hydrostatic Pressure:

Source: http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm

When you get into the ocean (or any body of water) and you start diving down from the surface, the deeper you dive the more water is over the top of you. The more gallons of water you put between you and the surface of the ocean, the greater the pressure is on your body because of the weight of the water over the top of you. This pressure is called hydrostatic pressure.

You can really get a sense of hydrostatic pressure when you go into a swimming pool and dive all the way to the bottom of the deep end. You'll feel the hydrostatic pressure against your ear drums, like they're being squeezed or pushed in. Well, you can imagine how incredible the pressure must be in the Challenger Deep with almost seven miles of water overhead - it's 16,000 pounds per square inch!

Now, at the surface of Earth the air pressure is 14.7psi. Because Mars has a really thin atmosphere, the pressure is much lighter, only 0.6% of the sea level surface pressure on Earth.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

A car crushing machine exerts 2000psi.

Source: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-crusher.htm/printable

So in order to build probes to explore the deepest parts of the ocean, you must build machines, hoses, cameras, and lenses that can withstand 8 times the force of a car crushing machine for hours on end while remaining airtight while being light enough to maneuver and come back up to the surface.

This is magnitudes harder than building a probe to explore Mars.

As for the Earth not being a sphere.... Bruh... The theory of relativity says that an object creates a dimple in the fabric of space/time. Just like if you sit in your bed, it creates a low spot and anything sitting on your bed falls into it, the same with planets and everything really. The larger the body, the larger the dimple in space/time that is created, the larger the gravitational pull. That's why the Sun's gravity is strong enough to hold all the planets in orbit.
 
gravity huh? fuck outta here with that shit. i don't buy the notion that gravity keeps the water from falling off the sides of a sphere.

My man, water, clouds it's all the same. If you want proof that gravity can keep water/clouds from falling off a sphere, go spend 100 bucks for a telescope and point it at Jupiter. There is no Hollywood shit or US government in the way. Just you and a telescope.

Before you do it, have the telescope look at something you have already seen with you own eyes so you won't think the US government has rigged all the telescopes.

You will see that Jupiter is indeed a sphere and you will be able to make out the cloud bands on it and you will see WITH YOUR OWN EYES that the clouds are not falling off of it.

It's easy.
 
Back
Top