/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10839134
>Either a computer or one of the two astronauts on board.
Which one? If it was a computer, what computer was it? If it was one of the astronauts, how did they do it?
>Prove that it was used to fake the moon landing rather than for practice or study.
Pic related - supposedly taken on Apollo 17, notice how huge the shadows are of the "moon mountains"? Many miles long - mountains on the earth do not cast shadows like that. The shadows are caused by a close light illuminating the plaster of Paris model.
>So a conspiracy so airtight that it has endured for 50 years, while stuff like Watergate and MKUltra get exposed, likes to leak out information? That's ridiculous.
You're basically claiming that it's impossible for powerful governments to partake in conspiracies because they're too incompetent not to expose themselves. Or perhaps things like Watergate or Bill Clinton getting his dick sucked are deliberately released to the public so that the public believe the government are extremely incompetent at keeping things secret.
>No. I didn't say that. I'm convinced of the overwhelming evidence for the Apollo moon landings. However, a conspiracy theorist can just deny all of that and claim that it was all perfectly faked while providing no evidence at all, but can't ignore that the Soviets were keeping a close eye on Apollo and could tell if a hoax was happening. No conspiracy theory can logic it's way out of this issue without either assuming that the S
It wasn't "perfectly faked" though - it looks pathetic. Can you provide some footage that really convinces you of it being real?
>No. The Soviets confirmed the landings happened.
You trust them because...?
>Why does that matter? Comic books about real life exist.
The whole narrative behind the cold war only leads credence to the belief that it was fake - first one to the moon wins? Come on...
Can you explain why the Soviets and Americans did a symbolic docking with each other in space after the "war" finished?