Shocking New Evidence On 1969 Moon Landing

[Member2019]

Not this again. Small minds people. sheesh.

No, it's not about intelligence, it's about the ability of someone to pry upon ignorance.
They use something like the questioning of video evidence, which is something that many Americans can believe.
Then they move on to using Aristotle-like physics principles to disprove what even classic (i.e., Kepler-Newtonian era circa 17th+ century) physics law says is reality.
E.g., wind is just a movement of air particles, that's what makes the flag move -- air is not required, just particles.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

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.

Again, aristotle-type physics!
Angular momentum -- the momentum of an object spinning on its own axis can influence the 6 degrees of freedom of any object, vacuum or air.
The study of angular momentum almost kicked my ass in Dynamics (Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics), but it ended up being my strongest suit when I was done.
Had I not left dreaded Dynamics until the end of my college studies, I might have switched ME (Mechanical Engineering) instead of EE (Electrical).
This is stuff that is changes of rates upon changes of rates upon changes of rates and really requires 3 semesters of calculus to understand and explain.

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

It was a remote controlled camera with uplink.
The operator had to send the commands 2 seconds before the launch.
In fact, for Apollo 16, the controller did NOT time it well.
But for Apollo 17, he did a heck of a job and got it right -- and we was soundly rewarded.

Had we had the control systems technology back then that we do today, it would have been easy.
But back then, everything was manual and the human error element was a BIG factor!

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?

Early LIMs had a 70mm lunar surface camera that was deployed shortly after touchdown.
That wasn't much of an engineering feat at all, even without the digital control systems technology at that time.
I can't believe you think you need a physical person to run a camera.

Do some research on the Grumman Lunar Module and you'll find it's basically a super Swiss Army box when it comes to attached peripherals and components.

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.

Ummm, sorry, but you're pretty ignorant here.

First off, sea level atmosphere pressure is around 15 psi.
Secondly, you have to concern yourself with how much oxygen is in the air (around 15-20%), because your ability to breath is related to the pressure and oxygen mix.

Now let's discuss.
Vacuum is (virtually) 0 psi.
With a 100% oxygen mixture, 5 psi is more than adequate to allow normal breathing.
That's what the astronauts use in a vacuum.

During the "plugs out" test on the Earth, astronauts test the pressure of their vehicle or space suits in a +5psi, or 20psi.
The differential is the same as in a vacuum.

Now if you want to experiment, fill a baloon and test it so it is 20psi.
Then see if you can bend it.
I think you'll be very surprised.

The INCORRECT analysis people do is assume that astronauts use +15psi in space.
In that case, yes, it would be somewhat like inflating a tire to 30psi in the 15psi atmosphere.
Then again, vulcanized ruber at 15psi (+0 psi) isn't the easiest to bend, a heck of a lot more difficult than simple fibers of a 2-layer space suit.

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?

They did, they put reflectors on the moon.
And the descent modules can be seen with optics from the earth.

In fact, I think Grumman-NASA should have done more with the LIM's descent module, as it has an RTG power source.
It could power something for decades.

The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Unfortunately putting such materials on a space vehicle would have put up a huge ass flag early in design.
Even the propellent used exoatmosphere cannot combust without the oxidizer, and the chemicals used are so stable without the other.
Even explosive bolts are frowned upon anything that is not part of the initial launch vehicle (booster).

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission.

Yes, the LIM Pilot and Commander are in the LIM while the 3rd crewmember remains in the Command Module in lunar orbit.
Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?[/QUOTE] Who says? Do you have a picture?
The Apollo 12 crew did a LOT that was not approved, and I'm sure their use of a camera not designed for a vacuum made it a bit smaller.
I'd have to see the picture.

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?

It might be due to a reflection on the LIM, and he is much closer at a different light vector than the flag.
Again, I'd have to see the picture to analyze it.

And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

Again, I have explained this over and over.

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?

Low resolution camera might be your answer on the stares.
As far as the flag, if it was mylar (which is very light so it is often used as a "generic material" in space), it's reflectivity is the answer on its brightness.

[ SIDE NOTE: We use mylar balloons as decoys in missile defense testing because it's so damn reflective.
Our tracking systems technology today is damn good at seeing right past them. ]

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

That's because the descent engine blew all the loose powder that then encircled the craft which the astronauts stepped in.

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.

No, that's not true at all.
After the loose power was blown away, the moon's surface is rocky.
As I mentioned in another thread, at 17 tons in 1/6th Earth gravity, less than 3 tons of thrust would be necessary to offset its weight during landing.
The DC-X (Delta Clipper demonstrator) was of equal weight, but was operating on the Earth and its 6x thrust did NOT blast holes in the Earth when it landed.

Again, elementary physics dismisses the majority of your comments here.
I'd have to see the photos to explain them.
Understand that space, on the moon's surface, you have multiple, very bright light sources -- not only the Sun, but the Earth, and then the massive reflectivity of mylar and other materials on the LIM.

 

[McRocket]

Yes and no.
There is such a thing as an "ignorant majority" that is a major issue in a Democracy.
The American founding fathers have some profound views on that, and its one of the reasons why we are not only a Democratic-Republic, but our 3 branch system is designed to prevent any majority from controlling it long-term.

As far as I am concerned; there was little profound about most of the American 'founding fathers'. They were simply a bunch of powerful men who did not wish to ever lose that power. Profound? Not by my definition of the word.

The American public's stance on using RTGs (radio-thermal isotope generators) in space is probably the most profound example of ignorance I've ever seen.
This video is another great example.
I believe in the right to debate, but it does become very frustrating when the majority constantly questions a more experienced minority on a subject where the majority is not well educated on the matter.

Well how the heck is the majority going to understand unless they ask a sufficient number of questions to completely understand the situation in question?
Oh, and the use of RTG's in space is THE worst case of ignorance you have EVER seen? Not even close in my book. Wars are the worst I have seen. Human beings being convinced and/or conned to lay down their lives en masse to fulfill the whims and wishes of the rich and/or powerful.
And that is just one example of many.
If every RTG in space came crashing down to Earth how many would be killed? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Compare that to the millions that die in wars every decade? No comparison in my book.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

Again, aristotle-type physics!
Angular momentum -- the momentum of an object spinning on its own axis can influence the 6 degrees of freedom of any object, vacuum or air.
The study of angular momentum almost kicked my ass in Dynamics (Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics), but it ended up being my strongest suit when I was done.
Had I not left dreaded Dynamics until the end of my college studies, I might have switched ME (Mechanical Engineering) instead of EE (Electrical).
This is stuff that is changes of rates upon changes of rates upon changes of rates and really requires 3 semesters of calculus to understand and explain.

Maybe the next time you are not going to answer a question because we are all too ignorant and/or you cannot be bothered to explain it; maybe you could say that right off instead of going on about your life in university before you decide not to answer the question.
No offense intended.
Have a nice day.

 

[amstrad]

Prof. Vol, why did you use my name on quotes I clearly didn't make? (See your post #82)

 

[Member2019]

Prof. Vol, why did you use my name on quotes I clearly didn't make? (See your post #82)

Oh, sorry about that, I'll correct it.
My sincerest apologies.
...
I can't seem to edit that post.
BTW, I was just following up on your comments, wasn't criticizing your views at all.

 

[Member2019]

Oh, and the use of RTG's in space is THE worst case of ignorance you have EVER seen? Not even close in my book.

I meant with regards to space travel, sorry I didn't lay down that context.

If every RTG in space came crashing down to Earth how many would be killed?
100? 1,000? 10,000?

Try 0. It would either have to hit you or you'd have to sit right next to it for a few hours.
BTW, there have been 3 published RTG accidents in NASA's history, all 3 were recovered from the ocean IIRC.

Not even the blast of a massive amount of LOx and LHx will rip those babies apart.
But would you expect otherwise?
It's a solid chunk of U/Pu encased with a wire running through it.
No moving parts, just U/Pu acting like it does in nature.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

Maybe the next time you are not going to answer a question because we are all too ignorant

I never said "too ignorant," I said people prey upon your select ignorance.
I'm ignorant of the tax code, so it's very easy for an accountant to mislead me if I don't take the faintest interest.
That means I either educate myself, or I weigh arguments from people I respect.

This video preys upon people who have not even had classical physics.
The references made to the video here are about questions that are laughable.
They are based on the same, preceived "common sense" views that Aristotle-era physics were.

and/or you cannot bebothered to explain it;

I *DID* explain it -- over and over in other posts!
Read my other posts, or ask an engineer or physcists yourself!

maybe you could say that right off instead of going on about your life in university before you decide not to answer the question.

You brought up what is completely accounted for with angular momentum.
If the fact that you were completely ignorant of what angular momentum is, and use Aristotle's common explaination that air can only affects motion, then I'm sorry.
I wanted to explain to you why you don't study it -- it's typically only something that is studied in Engineering Mechanics.

No offense intended. Have a nice day.

No offense taken, but the term "ignorant" -- when used in a SELECT CONTEXT -- means what it means.
It doesn't mean "dumb" or "not intelligent" or "stupid."
I literally mean that this video preys upon people whore are ignorant of even classic physics, and there is so much Aristotle-type analysis it is laughable.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

You brought up what is completely accounted for with angular momentum.
If the fact that you were completely ignorant of what angular momentum is, and use Aristotle's common explaination that air can only affects motion, then I'm sorry.

I am almost positive that I have never even heard the term 'angular momentum' before. And the Aristotle thingy is totally foreign to me. Why would you assume the contrary?
My only problem with all the things I mentioned is that there seemed to be a whiff of condescention in what you said. That is all. If I am wrong - I sincerely apologize. And either way I give you an 'a' for effort.

Have a nice day.

 

[4G63]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

I never said "too ignorant," I said people prey upon your select ignorance.
I'm ignorant of the tax code, so it's very easy for an accountant to mislead me if I don't take the faintest interest.
That means I either educate myself, or I weigh arguments from people I respect.

This video preys upon people who have not even had classical physics.
The references made to the video here are about questions that are laughable.
They are based on the same, preceived "common sense" views that Aristotle-era physics were.
I *DID* explain it -- over and over in other posts!
Read my other posts, or ask an engineer or physcists yourself!

You brought up what is completely accounted for with angular momentum.
If the fact that you were completely ignorant of what angular momentum is, and use Aristotle's common explaination that air can only affects motion, then I'm sorry.
I wanted to explain to you why you don't study it -- it's typically only something that is studied in Engineering Mechanics.
No offense taken, but the term "ignorant" -- when used in a SELECT CONTEXT -- means what it means.
It doesn't mean "dumb" or "not intelligent" or "stupid."
I literally mean that this video preys upon people whore are ignorant of even classic physics, and there is so much Aristotle-type analysis it is laughable.

I'd like to point out that you have never been to Luna, so how do you know?

 

[D-rock]

They did, they put reflectors on the moon.

I think the reflectors can be detected from here. Isn't that what they bounced light off from when they did testing to see if the moon is moving further away from us? I think they found it to be moving away at about an inch a year.

As far as I am concerned; there was little profound about most of the American 'founding fathers'. They were simply a bunch of powerful men who did not wish to ever lose that power. Profound? Not by my definition of the word.

The "founding fathers" were definitely not perfect, but for being "a bunch of powerful men who did not want to ever lose that power", as you state it, they sure went through a lot a whole heck of a lot of time and effort to limit it. Even if the populace would have gotten angry and killed them if they went to far, the people probably would have let them keep much much more power to themselves than they did. For reversing a trend in history, if perhaps only for a relatively short period of time, of people in power that goes back since humanity’s beginning I would say is pretty profound.

 

[McRocket]

The "founding fathers" were definitely not perfect, but for being "a bunch of powerful men who did not want to ever lose that power", as you state it, they sure went through a lot a whole heck of a lot of time and effort to limit it. Even if the populace would have gotten angry and killed them if they went to far, the people probably would have let them keep much much more power to themselves than they did. For reversing a trend in history, if perhaps only for a relatively short period of time, of people in power that goes back since humanity’s beginning I would say is pretty profound.

I did not say they were not some of the better types of the time. I just do not happen to have much respect for people in power at that time. Anyone that would write the 'Bill of Rights' stating all men are created equal - and then excluding slaves are hypocrits of the first order. And I do not even begin to give a shit what was normal then. Wrong is wrong.
So no. Most of the founding fathers can go take a jump in the proverbial lake for all I care. No. They can stuff it for all I care. Overrated bunch of ------ er -- people.

 

[Member2019]

I did not say they were not some of the better types of the time.
I just do not happen to have much respect for people in power at that time.
Anyone that would write the 'Bill of Rights' stating all men are created equal - and then excluding slaves are hypocrits of the first order.

Don't assume the same people who wrote the Constitution of the United Stated wrote its first Ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights too.
Remember, many of the elected representatives of state governments did NOT like the US Constitution because it was too powerful.
Although Deleware and a few other states passed the Constititution after the "Great Compromise" (on the House v. Senate representation), MOST states would not sign it because it was too powerful.
Then began the submissions for what would become the first Ten Amendments -- I believe 91 or so were finalists.
It was the Continential Congress (not sure wish one) that finally narrowed them down to Ten.

Now we can argue back and forth on this -- but my ORIGINAL point was that there is the issue of an "ignorant majority" with a Democracy.
It was discussed over and over my the US founding fathers REGARDLESS of what you think of them for whatever reasons.
An "ignorant majority" is a plague on any subject -- be it leadership/rule, scientific/environmental policy, etc...
In the case of the US founding fathers, they set the government up so it would prevent, over time at least, certain laws or executions of those laws from being used against the people -- with the judicial having final say, clearly the institution of the 3 that is farthest from being ignorant.
Same deal goes for science, environmental policy, etc..., among other things -- many things in this nation are ruled by an "ignorant majority" and not just "people with money" either.

This video caters to that.

[ SIDE NOTE: "All men are created equal" was the highlight of the US Declaration of Independence, although one could say it's (virtually) sole author Thomas Jefferson had some issues. ]

And I do not even begin to give a shit what was normal then. Wrong is wrong.

There's plenty today that you think is "normal" that people in the future will say is wrong.
Furthermore, have you considered the fact that a MAJORITY of the states (c/o their representatives) at the time of the writing of the US Constitution believed that slavery was going to tear the nation apart within the first 100 years?
Before you pass judgement on the US founding fathers, I invite you to read their comments, writings, etc...
The bottom line was that slavery was agreed to co-exist for the time being because the US already had enough fractions that were arguing and splintering than to add that "big one."

Heck, some of the most anti-slavery advocates were hard-core Federalists, and that's a debate that still raged on not only in Andrew Jackson's time, not only in the middle of the civil war, but through the Great Depression before finally being put to rest with the Civil Rights movement.
It's about what, how and even if the federal government has the right to override the will of the autonomous states.
You might chalk it up to right v. wrong, but because of the abuse of the rights of others, we've all lost due to Federalism.

So no. Most of the founding fathers can go take a jump in the proverbial lake for all I care.
No. They can stuff it for all I care. Overrated bunch of ------ er -- people.

They aren't "overrated" because of what they thought or did.
It was more about what they considered -- despite arguing, disagreeing, threatening each other, and finally realizing they just needed to build a nation.
So they architected a nation that realized they had issues, views and disagreements that were so strong that no one side should rule any other.

Be careful when you say something is "wrong" -- because that means you're instilling the values of some on others.
You and I might think something is wrong, but our values have much to do with how we were raised, and we could easily be seen as bigots in less than 100 years -- no matter how "open minded" we seem today.

 

[4G63]

I did not say they were not some of the better types of the time. I just do not happen to have much respect for people in power at that time. Anyone that would write the 'Bill of Rights' stating all men are created equal - and then excluding slaves are hypocrites of the first order. And I do not even begin to give a shit what was normal then. Wrong is wrong.
So no. Most of the founding fathers can go take a jump in the proverbial lake for all I care. No. They can stuff it for all I care. Overrated bunch of ------ er -- people.

What they meant is that all men come out of the womb equal. Status in life was not an issue. "All men are created equal" means all men are pink and sticky at birth. That will alway be true and is a good metaphor for capitalism, you may be pink and sticky at birth but you can go on to do great things, especially if your parents are rich.

As for landing on Luna. Some say that the solar radiation erased all moon footage, so a "fake" had to be made in Hollywood. Either way I believe landing on Luna to be possible, and when The Nipponese or the Chinese do it again in a few years this will be a moot point.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

I am almost positive that I have never even heard the term 'angular momentum' before.

Most non-engineers/physcists have not.
At the least, anyone who touches high school phyisics, maybe high school physical science as well, learns of "inertia" and "momentum."
What people don't realize is that not only do objects move in 6 degrees of freedom (6DOF), but more importantly, they can spin on their own axis (which also can be changing) with a varying centerpoint.
If that centerpoint is not at the very center of their center of gravity -- which is almost an absolute given, you have to consider angular momentum.

That's why a golf ball in space with a slive placed upon it could wobble back and forth, while it's spinning.
Remember, the spin has angular momentum which might not be at the gravitational center of the ball.
At the same time, because the ball is spinning, the "face" where the center of the spin is also moving.
So it wobbles one way one second, another another second, etc...

A good, "2D" experiments for angular momentum include toys like the gyro, yoyo, etc...
The gyro wobbles back and forth, and not because of any force from air.
The yoyo succums to the force of gravity, then it defies it, "pulling itself up the string" when the string itself is not elastic or providing any force.

And the Aristotle thingy is totally foreign to me.

No, what I meant by "Aristotle-like analysis" is that people have a tendency to assume things can't happen in a vacuum that happen in air.
That is a repeat theme with Aristotle's explanations on how things work, "the air behind it did it."
That's exactly what the video did, which appeals to most people.
It seems "common sense" and it's DEAD WRONG physics-wise.

In other words, I'm not "explaining" anything new to you, I'm just explaining how the laws of physics don't always match what you might think.
Now imagine you are Galileo Galilei been threatened with the stake by the "ignorant majority."
And had Johannes Kepler not been a devote believer, and on a religious path completely away from what would become classic astrophysics, he would have never explained it.
We tend to explain things in the WRONG WAY when it comes to physics by default, based on assumptions.

Heck, even as an EE, I still have an issue imagining the "right hand rule" because I can't see it.
But for some reason, the "normal" of Statics [Engineering Mechanics], makes perfect sense, and a complement to the concepts of angular momentum.
As I said, I should have majored in ME, but it was too late (I took Dynamics [Engineering Mechanics] my last semester).

Why would you assume the contrary?

Because you made analysis like Aristotle did, regardless of whether or not you knew the first thing about him or what he said.
It's the issue with the fact that we tend to explain physics INCORRECTLY on our own, until we focus on commonalities.
E.g., a big one continues to be kids don't realize that everything accelerates at the same, constant rate of gravity.
We think the feather is lighter, so that's why it falls slower.

Now by the time you're at the end of single digit years, most get over that.
But that's just a simple one.
Now we have a flag waving because we associate it with the requirement of air.
We have the concept that light and pictures are too perfect in space shots, not realizing that it's the (virtual) lack of particles that disort
(I professionally just recently visited the western US -- and boy can you see much clearer than in the humid southeastern US!).
Bright light cast by an Earth that is close and large on the moon's surface almost as much as the Sun itself (the planet is only 70% water, and damn does it!).
Reflections of mylar materials all over everything man-made that made Commander Scott look like a fool in Apollo 15.

My only problem with all the things I mentioned is that there seemed to be a whiff of condescention in what you said.

If you read my other posts, you'd realize that I did my best to explain things.
The great majority of people not "ignorant" as a person, someone is only "ignorant" to select knowledge.
That's how and why such a video can target and convince people.
Especially an ignorant majority.

That is all. If I am wrong - I sincerely apologize. And either way I give you an 'a' for effort.

In re-reading my response to yourself, I see how it could come off that way.
I made it under the assumption that you might have read my other responses, and knew what I meant about the video preying upon your "common sense."

 

[McRocket]

Before you pass judgement on the US founding fathers, I invite you to read their comments, writings, etc...

Writings from that time mean little to me. Writing was the only way to communicate with the future. Naturally, if one were to write something for the public domain; then one would realize that they would be judged by those writings. So they will naturally put themselves in a better light. Sacrificing what they really think for what makes them sound better - as far as they are concerned. You have absolutely no way of proving that I am wrong - as far as I am aware.
I have no way of knowing which did it and which did not. Judging by the cruelty and acceptence of said cruelty by the seeming majority of people at that time; then I assume most were guilty of that. If a statement cannot be proven to be true; then it is a relative waste of time for me.

The bottom line was that slavery was agreed to co-exist for the time being because the US already had enough fractions that were arguing and splintering than to add that "big one."

In other words, slavery was a compromise to keep the country together. No compromise is EVER worth that. Or ever justifies the enslavement and subjegating of an entire race of people. And I do not give a rats ass whether the country was at stake or not. A country that can only survive with slavery is not worth saving.
Was it a step in the right direction for the world? Yes. But they ain't gettin' any fucking medals from me for it.
I'd sooner give a medal to John Brown (that semi-nut) then the founding fathers. And I am a white guy.

They aren't "overrated" because of what they thought or did.

Yes they were/are overrated - as far as I am concerned.

Be careful when you say something is "wrong" -- because that means you're instilling the values of some on others.

To me more specific; I am giving my opinion about a subject. Any instillation of values on others I take zero responsibility for - just so long as my statements are honest and accurate.

You and I might think something is wrong, but our values have much to do with how we were raised, and we could easily be seen as bigots in less than 100 years -- no matter how "open minded" we seem today.

You may be right. I do not know.

It is a pleasure to debate with you.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Moon landings a hoax?

Most non-engineers/physcists have not.
At the least, anyone who touches high school phyisics, maybe high school physical science as well, learns of "inertia" and "momentum."

My brother got a degree in Physics from Cal-Berkeley. Me? I took it for a couple weeks in high school; found it very frustrating (2 questions for every answer) and quit.

 

[Member2019]

I think the reflectors can be detected from here.
Isn't that what they bounced light off from when they did testing to see if the moon is moving further away from us?
I think they found it to be moving away at about an inch a year.

Yep, the reflectors were used to most accurately measure the moon's position over time.
People forget how we learn things.
E.g., how do they know what the atmosphere of the outter planets in our solar system are made of?
It's surely not because of space probes, they don't enter the atmosphere of them.
Until just recently, only Venus and Mars had been entered by spacecraft.

The "founding fathers" were definitely not perfect, but for being "a bunch of powerful men who did not want to ever lose that power", as you state it, they sure went through a lot a whole heck of a lot of time and effort to limit it.

But sometimes, it looked like they may not.
Probably the greatest influence on the Continental Congress was George Washington.
He could have been King, full nobility and title to go with it, but it was he who set forth the executive's title of "President."

Even if the populace would have gotten angry and killed them if they went to far,

No, that's how the French do things (and I don't mean the recent riots, just research their history).

the people probably would have let them keep much much more power to themselves than they did.

Yes and no.
Yes, to the small, individual, they could care less about what went on in Philly (then New York and then finally DC).
But no, to the states -- their elected representatives -- that's the key.
Sigh, we're too much Gen-X on-ward now -- the concept of "states rights" is now forbidden in civics classes.
The term was used by people taking away the rights of others, and as a result of federalism, we ALL lost our states rights.
That's the problem with federalism, it has to override an ignorant majority to protect the minority -- and when that happens, the federal becomes more powerful.
The key is to not be ignorant, and not harm others, so the federal does not have to take away your freedom.
Because when you show you are not able to distinguish right from wrong, the law does it for you, and you lose.

For reversing a trend in history, if perhaps only for a relatively short period of time, of people in power that goes back since humanity’s beginning I would say is pretty profound.

The British Commonwealth had the Magna Carta and John Locke's writings were well before the US was anywhere near being founded.
Even today, the US National Archives displays the British Magna Carta at the entrance to the National Archives because it was an important step in the creation of the American ideal before our Founding Fathers.

What makes the US different is ...
1. The 3 branches -- most Democratic-Republics elect their Executive from the majority of the Legislative, we don't -- and the Judicial branch is of the greatest interest (and controversy)
2. The Bill of Rights -- probably the greatest "individual" piece that came out of the US, it was NOT written by the "Founding Fathers," but by the majority of US states who would NOT accept the US Constitution without guarantees of rights
3. The end of certain judicial enforcements, making certain misfortunes criminal acts -- such as debt, etc...

Most everything else is heavily influenced by the British Commonwealth -- especially Judicial Common Law.
Heck, if you want to go far back, you can understand why displaying the Ten Commandments in a court can be considered both an "inappropriate sign of religion" in one context and then an "appropriate sign of Common Law" in another.

In fact, I've always argued that for Iraq, a "separation of powers" would be ideal to contain the "Sunnies don't trust Shites," "Shites don't trust Sunnies" and "neither trust the Kurds" in Iraq when it comes to the Legislative (3 houses).
The Executive is straight-forward, the people vote.
And the Judicial are the Islamic Clerks -- 3 from each of the 3 (9 total), selected by the Executive, approved by the corresponding Legislative (the 1 house) -- who would ensure and preserve the traditional order and history of Islam in a secular federal.

Anyhoo, I've really gone off a tangent here. Sorry.

 

[McRocket]

When the hek did I type all that? What post and/or thread is it from please?

 

[Member2019]

So they will naturally put themselves in a better light.

Or explain their thinking, right or wrong.
Sometimes the best way to understand something is to read their views, even if they are mistaken or based on concepts that are false.
In fact, I've taken lengths here to explain WHY you might be fooled by such a video that presented alleged "evidence" that the landings were fake.

In other words, slavery was a compromise to keep the country together.

Yes.

No compromise is EVER worth that.

Correct, and they were clearly "passing the buck."

Was it a step in the right direction for the world? Yes.
But they ain't gettin' any fucking medals from me for it.

Other than maybe John Handcock and a few others, I don't think many were there because of that.