Upcoming Indian Moon Landing.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 163
  • Start date
  • Replies 448
  • Views 7K
D

Deleted member 163

Non Registered Member
GUEST
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #363
With your guys knowledge and my boobs I bet we can make a believer out of James.
I concluded that he was a troll, and so did others.
 

Ire-land

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
4,730
Likes
7,216
Location
Doubling
So, I've put my week or so of intensive scientific analysis into the this, aka, browsing this thread, and I've concluded that there's a smoking gun- it's a combo meal of 3 things...

1. The footprints- with just the force of whatever their effective weight was.
2. The fella falling on the sample stick and pushing it miles into the ground- again, with just the force he could create.
3. The moon landing pod that landed with jets or rockets or whatever they were slowing it down.

It's impossible that the landing pod wouldn't have created basically crater on the surface. It was obviously very soft on the surface, but also due to how far that sample stick went in, it obviously wasn't very compacted either.

The only thing I came up with for it being real is actually point 2. above- if it was filmed in a vacuum chamber, which presumably would be made of some serious concrete, then how did the sample stick go in so deep?
 

valamhic

DEPORTED
PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,822
Likes
1,176
So, I've put my week or so of intensive scientific analysis into the this, aka, browsing this thread, and I've concluded that there's a smoking gun- it's a combo meal of 3 things...

1. The footprints- with just the force of whatever their effective weight was.
2. The fella falling on the sample stick and pushing it miles into the ground- again, with just the force he could create.
3. The moon landing pod that landed with jets or rockets or whatever they were slowing it down.

It's impossible that the landing pod wouldn't have created basically crater on the surface. It was obviously very soft on the surface, but also due to how far that sample stick went in, it obviously wasn't very compacted either.

The only thing I came up with for it being real is actually point 2. above- if it was filmed in a vacuum chamber, which presumably would be made of some serious concrete, then how did the sample stick go in so deep?
1) The boots might not go deep due to their wide area and 1/6 gravity.
2) Correct and he did not lift up as he pushed it down. He would only weight about 60 kgs on the moon.
3) I don't get that point.
At that time there was no vacuum chamber anywhere. One was built in Ohio between Apollo 11 and 16 about 1971.

Can you take a look at the official landing film for Apollo 11. The object pointing down is a switch which touches the surface first and puts a light on in the cabin which tells the crew to stop the engine rocket when the legs are near the surface. Note the shadow from the sunlight.The sun is at about 23 degrees and there should be no shadow until the tip is less than a foot away from the surface. Yet there is a shadow at heights of 100 and then at 20 feet. This is impossible.

Note the cratered hollowed surface of the moon is not contacted by the tip of this probe. It appears to be a photograph, not a real rough surface.

I cannot get anyone here to agree that this is proof positive that this film s a hoax, but it is. The craft was never more than 2 feet from the surface.

 
Top Bottom