>>7369685Yes, dear, I already saw that photo you posted. The photos you posted are from Apollo 11 mission to the moon in 1969, which is a different year and context than 1965. The Barbie outfit came out in 1965, and resembles the flight suits, orbital suits and helmets worn by Western astronauts in that period.
>>7369690>No, you claim to know about STEMI didn't "claim to know about STEM." I said that both the 60s Astronaut Barbie and the 2010s Astronaut Barbie were realistic for their times, the major difference being that the 60s doll outfit--which is not some silly fantasy outfit as you implied--was brown instead of white/blue/etc.
You're the one who pulled the "kekekekeke you're a gender studies feminist and you don't know about astronaut suits kekekeke" shit, so yep, you were claiming you know about STEM fields more than I do. Except you're an idiot who thinks a 1969 moonwalk suit is the same as a 1965 flight suit or even orbital space suit.
Oh wow, you sure showed me... Barbie doesn't have the straps of the Gemini mission and the suit is cream instead of light tan and darker brown from the re-release outfit. Or white and light silver from the original outfit. Wow, that sure makes that 1960s Barbie suit so fantastical and amazing and wondrous compared to the reality. I'm practically fainting from all the whimsy and wonder that Mattel injected into that design.
I can't wait to see what tiny nitpick you throw out in order to justify your honestly bizarre obsession with claiming that the brown astronaut outfit from the 60s is amazingly cool due to its lack of realism.
