SECCaptain

quote:

---

multiple moonwalkers there

---

You gotta love the sheer dumbassery of the US public

Iraq WMODs being made up by the Bush admin to justify a war that was really over oil/to get revenge for his dad? Those are just facts

Obama being a natural born Kenyan and it being covered up? Absolutely

COVID? Fauci should be charged with TREASON!!!

2020 election, and ONLY 2020, being rigged? You betcha

Esptein island and 1/2 of every public figure secretly being pedophile lizards? Was there ever any doubt?

Lying about going to the MOTHER frickING MOON in 1969 under a president proven to be a straight up crook who was completely untrustworthy? Not in my United States :usa: :bird:

I'm officially on board with the people who should be ridiculed aren't the deniers, but instead those mocking them

The 2nd group is so gullible they not only blindly accept it as fact, but are so confident they're willing attack the sheer existence of any skepticism regarding the event

Can we just talk about the logistics of actually going to the moon and back for a second?

Let's assume it is/was even possible to accurately measure the gravitational/thermal/atmospheric variations to be encountered on such a mission, and that human engineering was capable of designing a manned-rocketship that could maintain operational integrity across these extremes in the 1960's, that still leaves

1. Achieve and sustain an exit velo of 25,000 MPH in order to escape earth

2. Travel 240,000 miles @ ~17,500 MPH navigating a myriad of environmental variables outside of human-planning/control

3. Decelerate to safely enter lunar orbit and rotate for 2.5 days

4. Eject the lunar module and descend ~385,000 feet, safely landing on the surface using only thrusting to offset gravitational acceleration in this***



***Unlike earth, the moon has no atmosphere and thus no terminal velocity. An object free falling from that height would be traveling >2,000 MPH when it impacted the surface

5. Launch from the moon's surface at ~3,600 MPH and ascend ~75 miles to safely dock with the Columbia, which is orbiting at >3,000 MPH btw, in this



6. Orient the CSM back towards earth and despite requiring a propulsion system from a stationary start like this to get to the moon...



7. Exit the moon's gravitational pull, at ~5,000 MPH, mid-orbit using only this



8. Travel ~25,000 miles to reach the point where earth's gravitational pull takes over

9. Detach from the Service/Propulsion system ~3,000 miles from the surface

10. Despite requiring a litany of monumental technological leaps to pull off such a mission to this point, use fricking parachutes to land in the ocean



Not only was this pulled off, it was done on the very first attempt without reliable QA/training exercises as recreating the conditions to scale on earth are impractical/impossible. We also had video feed despite a fricking scattered thunderstorm decimating modern satellite feeds

And then we somehow managed to this lose all this technology, never even thinking to implement it into the military/civil industries. 60 years later, nothing compares aeronautically to what was supposedly achieved in 1969. Nothing has VTOL capabilities close to that of the Lunar Module. No aircraft has close to that level of structural integrity. And no weapons system has close to that max velo/operational range/adaptability

Sidenote: why does apollo 11 look near identical to that era's ICBMs?



This isn't anti-american, this isn't anti-government, and isn't even conspiracy theorist. Regardless of what Apollo 11 actually did/did not accomplish, using simple logic and reason, the United States claiming to not only have gone to the moon, but come back in 1969 might be the most dubious claim any organized government has ever attempted to perpetuate

Even if it did happen, you're an absolute fool to have no skepticism without first hand, indisputable evidence. And that really only applies to the 2 that supposedly touched down, even Collins should have had his doubts

quote:

---

He's in the Navy.

---

GOAT enlistment

Because there's a shite ton of money wagered against teams that just fired their coach, same with teams playing backup QB's. And amazingly both overperform relative to expectation with regularity :dunno:

Last 4 UCF games
21-13 vs TCU
17-27 @ #20 Houston, had 4th q lead
28-42 @ #18 OK State, had ball with chance to take lead in 4Q
39-31 vs #2 BYU

Meanwhile Baylor's coming off 2 terrible losses in a rows, 6-17 at home vs TCU and blowing a double digit 4Q lead to Kansas

And yet somehow just a few days after firing their coach, UCF was only -1.5 vs Baylor. I'd wager at least 85% of the money was on UCF, which is the real answer

quote:

---

ran it on 5 years of lines, a favorite coming off 2 straight losses against a dog that won its last 2 covered 46.5%

---

This isn't what I said at all :lol:

The logic is simple

Step 1: find and ~evaluate public expectation for teams going into a matchup, particularly teams featured nationally(ABC/CBS/NBC/ESPN/FOX)

Step 2: find lines that counter that expectation. This could be a favorite being too favored(Miami -19.5 vs Pitt after looking mediocre vs Clemson and getting taken to OT at home by FSU), an underdog being too close to even(UCF +7 coming off b2b losses vs #2 BYU), or a perceived dog being favored outright(South Carolina -2.5 after Tenner just beat Bama by 16)

Step 3: evaluate where the majority of the public money ends up, based on 1&2

Step 4: take the side opposite the money

Whether it's rigged or not, it's hysterical people go along with blame shite on the refs who are either grossly incompetent or flat out corrupt. In what galaxy do you think an official is rigging games without any of the coaches/players in on it? The same goes an officiating crew that continuously makes atrocious calls to perpetually compromise legitimate results...they're the scapegoat, and compensated for it

shite's WWE, and so blatantly obvious when you step back and see it for what it really is

Kind of funny how easy it is to win at sports betting when you really start paying attention week to week and watch how trends play out

I will admit Indiana was a bad bet with Michigan playing a backup QB, Inidana was never covering in that scenario

23-10 on a single weekend is absurd :lol:

$50 million roster

quote:

---

16 State
@ Auburn
6 Bama
7 Texas
@ 14 Tenner
@ Arky

---

Every game is also losable. If not for Arky, I’d say the odds is losing out are better than winning out

Give the kid a break. He tried to hook it left, just missed. Kudos to Franklin for still embracing him after the narrow make. Wait, why is is no one talking about that ACC review ops transparency thing ghosting? FADE THE PUBLIC.

edit: LOL @ not having to review a final kick being a rule. Imagine being so naive, the entire game is up for review but not a final play? Why isn't a camera on top of each upright pointing due north to leave no question to the result?

quote:

---

2 remaining losses at most on that schedule, one potentially this week vs Pitt, which if they somehow lose would make it an even better bet as the odds would be better

---

:cheers:

Edit: Honestly upvotes are so exploitable, to such a degree I will now say fade Virginia Tech the next 2 weeks because sometimes you just gotta trust your gut, but anyone reading this and considering perspectives, just think about this moving forward.

Maybe it's batshit crazy, maybe it's onto something. Maybe you just like conspiracies, and want to see how it plays out over time. Just sit on it and watch. It doesn't work every weekend, but for the most part it checks out. And in order to keep losers coming back, you have to let them win every now and then(er weeks), right?

quote:

---

Can we really just address this...?

Anyone betting the opposite of what anyone rational, that really follows the sport closely would see as a good bet, would has a high probability of hitting >60% of the time

Just like Chicago +3.5 vs Philly, Cleveland +2.5 vs Pittsburgh last night, or Northwestern +2.5 vs Penn State rn. The wild in-game swings, which could theoretically exploit live betting, ultimately leading back to the spread seem way too obvious at this point

Just watch for a weekend with the perspective that the sport is 100% rigged, and played/scripted to extract as much money as possible from bettors, while still maintaining enough credibility to not compromise the long run, both before and during the game. I'm not saying this is the case, but if you watch it and consider it from that perspective, amazingly trends start to add up. Strange coincidence is all I'm saying

---

quote:

---

How else do you think an upset is supposed to work? Clearly they can’t be favored

---

I’m not talking about the spread, I’m talking about money distribution by bettors

Which is theoretically supposed to be 50/50, but anyone believing that look to the Eagles only being -3.5 in the last nights latest rendition of performance art