Interesting and Humour - page 3127
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Atthe link is a fragment of a video in which the interviewer calls the actor by name and instructs him.
At the link is a fragment of a video in which the interviewer calls the actor by name and instructs him.
This is one of.... And what bloggers write... You know I'm not interested in bloggers as evidence at all
Personally, I was most impressed by the official story of the astronauts landing. It shows the capsule being fished out, the astronauts coming out, their passage through the ship...
What's striking is this:
1. The capsule is as good as new, lots of protruding parts - no braking against the atmosphere. The difference with ours is stark.
(2) The astronauts come aboard quite briskly, marching along the deck in formation. They look great. While they take our crew out, they can hardly move. There's not much movement now compared to the 70s.
This video more than anything else makes you question
PS.
No one has seen nearly half a ton of lunar soil. Ours, on the other hand, has been seen by several hundred.
No one has seen almost half a ton of moon soil. Ours, on the other hand, has been seen by several hundred.
You are lying again - everybody has seen the American lunar soil, one of NASA employees even stole some of it and was caught, many documentaries were made about it.
By the way, the broadcast of the astronauts' location from the Moon was intercepted by many systems, including the USSR's space communications point.
And the astronauts specifically left a reflector at the landing site - it is still in use today.
You are lying again - everybody saw the American lunar soil, one of NASA employees even stole part of it and was captured, many documentaries were made about it.
By the way, the broadcasting of the astronauts' location from the Moon was intercepted by many systems, including the USSR's space communications point.
And the astronauts deliberately left a reflector at the landing site - it is still in use today.
Fi, how rude you are!
Stole is certainly a killer argument. Characterises your opponent.
It 's about soil. And in general there is a long list of questions in connection with the American mission to the moon, to which there are no answers.
Google it, without me.
This is one of.... And what bloggers write... You know I'm not interested in bloggers as evidence at all.
Personally, I was most impressed with the official footage of the astronauts landing. It shows the capsule being fished out, the astronauts coming out, their passage through the ship...
What's striking is this:
1. The capsule is as good as new, lots of protruding parts - no braking against the atmosphere. The difference with ours is stark.
(2) The astronauts come aboard quite briskly, marching along the deck. They look great. While they take ours out, they can hardly move. There's not much movement now compared to the 70s.
This video more than anything else makes you question
PS.
No one has seen nearly half a ton of lunar soil. Ours, on the other hand, has been seen by several hundred.
They may have been on the moon, but not as many as claimed. I particularly liked one of their lies, in one of the documentaries. It's that they live streamed the moon landing on the big screen somewhere in Korea. When most cameras at the time were on film and in the film, the astronauts recorded everything on film, so they wonder what kind of transmission. Another observation, a spacesuit itself is quite heavy, but the lack of gravity, allows you to move around quite comfortably in it. And so when collecting the soil the astronaut couldn't take the weight, on the first try, the rock was heavier than expected. This suggests a hoax, or that the rocks on the moon are heavier than those on Earth. The film also talks about some sort of gelatinous, orange earth that the astronauts took to analyse. I suspect someone got into some alien crap!
Another "connoisseur" of TV broadcasting technology...
Just so you know - the first broadcast from Apollo 11 was made on the first day of the mission, when the ship hadn't even reached the Moon yet.
The broadcastwas recorded atthe Goldstone Space Communications Station inCalifornia and then rebroadcast tothe Mission Control Center in Houston. The on-board camera was in colour and gave a good quality image. The broadcast lasted just over 16 minutes
Another "connoisseur" of TV broadcasting technology...
Just so you know - the first broadcast from Apollo 11 was made on the first day of the mission, when the ship hadn't even reached the Moon yet.
The broadcastwas recorded atthe Goldstone Space Communications Station inCalifornia and then rebroadcast tothe Mission Control Center in Houston. The on-board camera was in colour and gave a good quality image. The broadcast lasted just over 16 minutes
Well yes, it was broadcast on a big cinema screen, tell me when the first, digital analogue projectors capable of receiving and broadcasting directly to wide screen, screens appeared. Connoisseur, not connoisseur, but they were obviously more fancy than they needed to be!
Well, I'll say it again! "They may have been on the moon, but not in the numbers claimed." I'm not claiming that the broadcast didn't happen or that it was impossible. It's just that claiming this broadcast was picked up by the whole world from Paris to Korea is a lie.
Well yes, it was broadcast on a big cinema screen, tell me when the first digital analogue projectors capable of receiving and transmitting directly to wide screen, screens appeared. Connoisseur, not connoisseur, but they clearly fancied more than they needed to!
Well, I'll say it again! "They may have been on the moon, but not in the numbers claimed." I'm not claiming that the broadcast didn't happen or that it was impossible. It's just that claiming this broadcast was picked up by the whole world from Paris to Korea is a lie.