/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9999241
Don't know, don't care. It might as well have been staged for all I know.

Better question: will Elon Musk take us to Mars? Will there ever be any point to space travel in the first place?

obviously yes, evidence and arguments for it being staged are weak and stupid,
evidence for it being real is overwhelming

>>9999253

But one of the problem is Van Allen belts being deadly, and exactly on a way to Moon.

>>9999274
How do we know they are deadly to humans if we never sent anyone up there for control?

>>9999241
Why is it so hard to believe? The moon is just a place like anywhere else

>>9999241
>we on the moon
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

>>9999281
radiation is dangerous only if you stay and soak in it, Apollo went fast through the belts on their way to the moon
>Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission

>>9999253
>obviously yes, evidence and arguments for it being staged are weak and stupid,
>evidence for it being real is overwhelming
boomers believe anything they see on tv

>>9999253
To say arguments against are weak is fair play. But go say the evidence is ovsrwhelming? Gimme a break
The only sufficient evidence would be a camcorder on board the shuttle that recorded the trip from start to finish - the fsct that there isnt even a single minute of video documented travel on the trip just goes to show it was likely bogus. Brb biggest and most amazing journey ever undertaken but lets not film it meanwhile film everything else. Cant believe we even buy that they did it in the 60s and noe a trillion dollars cant get private industry to go back and the government neither.

>>9999312
also, there is no picture of landing site from let's say Hubble Telescope or anything else

>>9999317
http://hubblesite.org/images/news/release/1999-14

>>9999290
humankind moron

>>9999324
yes but why not with resolution similar to google maps?

>>9999317
https://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.html

>>9999332
Because that's the highest resolution hubble is capable of
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=topten&id=77

>>9999337
ok but there are artificial satellites orbiting Moon isn't it?

>>9999379
see>>9999336

>>9999380
but I still think that these are insufficient PROOF that people were on Moon. Of course these might be true but easy to fabricate for any photoshop master.

>>9999312
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9HdPi9Ikhk
inb4
>hurrr it's all fake, irrelevant that they couldn't fake any of that in '69 when it was broadcasted worldwide, it's still fake somehow!

>>9999385
Apollo missions brought back like 200kg of Moon rocks and there has never been a peer reviewed paper that disputed that the rocks came from any other than the Moon. In order to bring back that amount of Moon rock would require something like 1000 probe missions, all of which would have to go undetected and all be launched in something like a 5 year window.

>They got them from Antarctica
We didn't realise you can find Moon rocks in Antarctica until like 20 years after the landing and we were only certain they came from the Moon by comparing them to the Apollo rocks, the rocks went unidentified as moon rocks for years.

>>9999385
>there is no picture of landing site from let's say Hubble Telescope or anything else
>is shown a picture of the landing site from a satellite
>its fake!
This is why no one can ever prove to you its real, so its why you should stop asking.

>>9999385
I don't know why you people constantly try to squirm out of the fact that you've already decided it's fake based on other reasons. You're always trying to pretend you're just some uninterested observer who's "looking at the evidence", it doesn't fool anyone.

Why don't you try applying this retarded level of skepticism to things that don't fit your worldview?

>>9999274

https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/know-moon-landing-really-happened/

>>9999484

I'm not like that.

>>9999566

You know, I always believed that Apollo Mission was real. But recently I met a guy, who was rather fluent about that we never made it to the Moon. So most of the arguments that I posted were like what he would really say if I would speak with him about that. That's all, I'm not trolling.

>>9999586
>But recently I met a guy, who was rather fluent about that we never made it to the Moon. So most of the arguments that I posted were like what he would really say if I would speak with him about that.
So you basically got gish galloped with a bunch of information you didn't personally know about, and there was nobody there to refute it. I can guarantee you anything he said can be explained fairly easily by someone who knows the subject.

>>9999241
well they bounced lasers off the mirrors they left on the moon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

>>9999619
Yes, actually most of is nicely explained in:
>>9999581
>>9999337
>>9999336
>>9999324

Thank you all, OP is out.

>>9999399
You idiot i specifically said during the journey. Everyone and yheir infant child has seen that footage and its very easily faked. Ever see 2001 space odyssey? Likely not sering as youre an under read uncultured gullible teenager. Also cameras had perfect HD quality and color then - why take the shitbox potato on the trillion dollar mission? I know why, but you never will

>>9999586
>I'm not like that.
I'm literally quoting your post

>>9999681
They had perfect HD quality black and white film, colour took a bit to catch up. Especially digital film.

>>9999445
Wernher Von Braun visited Antarctica before the "moon landings" happened.

so convenient for NASA to have "lost" all the designs used for the missions

>>9999625
They were bouncing lasers off the moon before any "reflectors" were supposedly put on it. https://www.nature.com/articles/1941267a0

>>9999282
Prove that the men is terrestrial.

>9999999
>10000000
Yes.

>>9999274
Everything is deadly in the right amount. They navigated through the weaker parts, had shielding, and were only in them for a short time.

Next.

>>9999303
The Soviets never called out "hoax". What does that tell you?

>>10000079
They think being the first to space > the first to the moon so they dgaf.
Any ruskies want confirm or deny?

>>10000088
>so they dgaf
Oh, and that's why they spend mega-roebels on their own moon project?

>>9999241
should've fixed the captcha instead.

t. not a robot

>>10000092
Hmm so I guess not. I guess they just don't want to be whiny.

>>10000079
That by the time of the space shuttles both sides were under the control of the same international cabals whats your point?

>>10000079
>still believes the soviets psyop meme
>doesnt know it was an organized effort by secret societies and alliances to create a false apparently hegelian dialectic scenario between two 'powers' acrosd the sides of the earth to manipulate the citizens braind towards a certain ulterior and ultimate ideological and economic outcome, as though the same banking and industrial clans dont own both states and the entire globe by now and that his entire collection of retorts and information had been given to him by them

Thats you on the left

>>10000123
I'm talking about 1969, not 1980.

>>10000126
Should write a book about that and call it 1985

>>10000126
>>10000123

Conspiracy theories should warrant permanent bans,

>>10000140
The answer to 1984 is Bill Hicks

>>9999274
They simply ignored that back then because beating the eternal russian was more important. Plus, people that went to the moon actually suffered more often from cancer because of that than the rest of the population. Plus, it's not important how high the radiation is but how long you're exposed to it.

>>9999956
Pretty much this. I'd be willing to believe them, especially with the Russians not disputing anything, but with the amount of shit that was haphazardly lost and the relative weakness of the positive evidence I wouldn't be surprised if it was faked. The whole "well, of course you couldn't see the flag, it'd be bleached white" after no images turned up pushed me to reconsider things.

>>10001678
I guess everybody is in on the conspiracy.
Why tho?

>>9999951
When I made that post I very very nearly included a bit about how I know they sent Von Braun to Antarctica and how for some strange reason they think he went to get Moon rocks.

Tell me Anon, Von Braun knows literally nothing about geology, why would they send HIM to get Moon rocks? Do you just assume that bc he was important to the program that he did literally everything?

As I already mentioned anyway, geologists didn't realise you could find Moon rocks in Antarctica until 1982. If there was a geologist who did know that you bet he'd publish a paper on it and become famous in his field. If you don't believe in the Moon landings you're putting the entire field of geology in with the conspirators.

>>10001748
Fuck loads of satellites are crashed on the Moon because of concentrations of mass (Mascons) making the gravity around the Moon non uniform. There are only four allowed values for a satellites inclination around the Moon that doesn't lead to decay and crashes

>>10001792
That's fucking awesone. Thank you based moonanon

>>9999329
you are the humankind moron

>>10001783
Von Braun didn't go on his own did he? Just the fact that NASA went to Antarctica before the moon landings if extremely suspicious.

> If there was a geologist who did know that you bet he'd publish a paper on it and become famous in his field.
Yes because how many geologists, particularly in the 60s, went to Antarctica to sample rocks? They had to go to Antarctica because it was and still is the most secluded and protected place in the world.

>If you don't believe in the Moon landings you're putting the entire field of geology in with the conspirators.
Utter nonsense and a complete straw man fallacy.

>>9999241

Moon landing is fake, NASA couldnt make it against the soviets so they made it up, doing a staged scene like that is very easy, specially for a country with literally Hollywood.

>>10002366
Obviously I don't think he went on his own, it's just that the only reason people say "Von Braun went to Antarctica" instead of "some employees of NASA went" is that they think his name will help convince more people of their conspiracy when his presence wouldn't have been any use in finding Lunar meteorites, why even send him if that's what they went for? Why announce the expedition if they're there to help a secret conspiracy?

>Yes because how many geologists, particularly in the 60s, went to Antarctica to sample rocks?
Exactly my point, such a geologist doesn't exist, that's the point.
How the fuck did NASA know that lunar meteorites could be found there when the first one wasn't found until 1979? It wasn't identified as a moon rock until 1982, which they achieved by comparing it to the only rocks they knew for sure came from the Moon, the Apollo moon rocks.
You must realise the entire conspiracy relies on the fact that NASA somehow got ahold of nearly 400kg of rocks that geologists agree must have come from the Moon (I said 200kg before from memory but I just looked it up).
The conspiracy standard is that when NASA sent their Antarctica expedition they collected the rocks there since Antarctica is a good place to look for Lunar meteorites, but how plausible is this?
Somehow some geologist knew 10 years before anyone else that Lunar meteorites could be found in Antarctica and this geologist didn't tell anyone but NASA.
This geologist would have had to have found a way of identifying that this rock definitely came from the Moon (not just a meteorite or rare unique terrestrial rock but specifically a Moon rock) without comparing it to a sample of known Moon rock.

Additionally, this expedition somehow acquired 400kg of Moon rocks. It's been 36 years since the world learned about Lunar meteorites and in those 36 years a grand total of 190kg have been found, mostly not in Antarctica but in deserts in North Africa.
So how did NASA get theirs?

>>10002423

>During the local summer of 1966–67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.[89] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by U.S. scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space.

Does that answer your questions?

>>10002384
>>10000079

>>10002442
I'm not sure why you're telling me that, I know why they went. The whole point of the post is to point out how that expedition couldn't have been the source of NASA's Lunar meteorites.

Apollo 11 was tracked by the Madrid observatory for its whole mission duration. The observatory is now working with NASA in the DSN but at the time the observatory had no real affiliation with NASA and zero motivation to be a part of some conspiracy.

>>10002455
I'll repeat, the goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by government scientists during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the exploration of space (aka moon mission).

Translation: Could we use some shit found here as evidence for moon rocks?

Anyone else watch EEVblog? Dave does a cracking video proving that we did land on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268

>>10002464
>Madrid observatory
Why'd you leave out the 'Royal' part of it its name? Is that because it lessens its integrity? Because it does.

Why does /sci/ respond to bait so easily?

>>10002475
Here's a cracking video proving we didn't go to the moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

>>10002442
>"NASA going to Antarctica is extremely suspicious!"
>posts the fairly obvious and legitimate reason they actually went
>"see?"

wtf dude

>>10002484
>video starts with quotes from the bible
opinion discarded

>>10002483
Because her tits are huge

>>10002488
They went for moon rocks you brainlet.

>>10002494
Believing the moon landings is just as stupid as believing the bible.

>>10002504
"No"

>>10002521
>thinks webm is real space footage
"Yes"

>>10002539
>it's another paranoid schizophrenic doesn't realise other people don't share their delusions that everything is fake episode

>>10002550
Many people have doubts about the moon landings, it's only people like you who have sci-chosis that defend it without question.

Of all the numerous theories which claim they were faked, none that I've seen hold up to scrutiny and are demonstrably false. On the contrary the evidence in favor of the landings happening is overwhelming, and the theories on which they rely have been verified by both experimentation and application in modern technology. The evidence is clearly in favor of them being real, at this point it requires one to dismiss all evidence presented as fake or manipulated and numerous multi generational parties complicit in hiding the truth, which while possible is unlikely.

>>10002568
I'm talking about how they constantly post footage like the webm above and then laugh about it being "obviously fake" when there is nothing about it that looks fake. It's just tiresome.

>>10002600
>there is nothing about it that looks fake
Are you fucking serious?

>>9999241
Logistics: The Conspiracy Killer

lol, wat the government got Average Joe moonlander steel worker to lie about what he was really working on?
And the gov also got his wife to keep her hubby's secret?

>>10002615
>what is compartmentalization

>>10000151
"it's a conspiwacy thewey" You know what should warrant a permanent ban? Making effortless posts.
>>10000126
Is correct in every word. If you people in this thread actually read books instead of wasting away shitposting, you would find out many fantastical truths about the world. Mainly, that your leaders haven't been the ones in control for two centuries now. The banking cartels have been transferring wealth, practically buying nations with loans / financing politicians and waging wars for profit. All under your noses, all for their benefit, all at your expense.

>>10002607
Can you be more specific? What in particular "looks fake"? What would you expect it to look like if it was real?

>>10002622
>If you people in this thread actually read books
>This international cabal can fake a moon landing and convince the entire planet
>they can't get rid of some books that blow their cover

>>10002620
>because that worked at los alamos
even when you are trying to keep it a secret compartmentalization is DOA my brother.
moon landing is a massive scale beyond any of that, also
next

>>10002624
Maybe the bit where it looks fucking retarded?

>>10002633
Can you explain how a steel worker would know it was a conspiracy?

>>10002607
>>10002644
This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you think something is just obvious at face value but you can't actually articulate why it's obvious, you're probably experiencing a delusion.

>>10002627
In the 1960s there was no internet, no cell phones, no social media for speed-of-light communication. In this day and age anybody can quickly read up on a subject like photography, physics, radiation, etc. and evaluate an event. When the moon landings happened, the average joe had no idea how rockets worked let alone what was needed to create a round trip mission to the moon. It was easy to fake a moon landing because few people on earth at the time could find out anything was wrong. People across the planet ate up NASA's lies without question.

Books existing that show their plan doesn't concern them for two reasons. 1. The amount of people who go out of their way to find the books that exist are extremely few. The populace is more than happy to live in the illusion that everything is wonderful. 2. The really damning books are purged. The "tell-all" volumes are hard to find. Try to find "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" by Carroll Quigley. A historian who interacted and lived with the richest, most powerful people in his time. When demand for his history book was highest, the publisher stopped printing it and the printing plates were destroyed. The book outlines a history of the global elite's plans to run the world.

>>10002654
>the average joe had no idea how rockets worked let alone what was needed to create a round trip mission to the moon. It was easy to fake a moon landing because few people on earth at the time could find out anything was wrong
But now it's dead easy to see that there wasn't anything wrong?

>>10002653
>thinks 2001 a space odyssey is real

>>10002654
https://www.ebay.com/p/Tragedy-and-Hope-A-History-of-the-World-in-Our-Time-by-Carroll-Quigley-1966-Hardcover-Unabridged/389588?iid=263921432097&chn=ps

>>10002659
Who was Jack Parsons?

>>10002654
>>10002663
Here's a PDF of it.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

>>9999681
>Let's spend extra billions of dollars taking big camera equipment to the moon landing
>Taking shit to space because lol it's basically Uber delivers but in spaec!!1

You're a fucking moron. You wanted them to invest in filming a 4k documentary instead of taking the astronauts safely to and back from the moon? Give me a fucking break, you people are delusional.

>>10002654
>the average joe had no idea how rockets worked let alone what was needed to create a round trip mission to the moon. It was easy to fake a moon landing
From JFK's speech on the entire western world was flooded with popsci articles on rockets, space and going to the moon.
The media were all over NASA and there were plenty of failures to criticise.
It wasn't just a TV broadcast with Neil stepping on the Moon. It was years and years of launches and tests.

>>10002699
Who was Jack Parsons?

>>10002731
A great rocket engineer who joined a cult and then blew himself up.
How's that relevant?

>>10002596
This! Have a free reaction image.

>>10002780

Where exactly do moon landing deniers think the we used the Saturn V for?

>>10002814
Why do conspiracy nuts always use people's quotes as if they're a substitute for a convincing argument or evidence?
If you think that quote is somehow meant to be a subtle admission of something then that's you reading into it, but you should be aware nobody else reads that and sees the same thing. If you wanna convince people you actually have to make an argument.

>>10002854
You're incapable of nuanced thinking. Why would a rocket engineer say something like that in the first place?

>>10002863
being a rocket engineer means you can engineer rockets and absolutely nothing else
also what exactly is that quote supposed to prove?

>>10002863
Is this bait or are you genuinely like this?
Do you actually believe that people should only ever have quotes about their professions, and if they talk about something else there's something suspicious?

>>10002873
He's telling you you deserve your exploitation. Do you trust thelemite occultists?

>>10002877
>if they talk about something else there's something suspicious?
No, it just means it's an unqualified opinion.

>a meme thread with stupid question
> 105 replies

I miss the old /sci/

>>10002877
You don't find Jack Parsons suspicious?

My opinion is that the first one was faked for the purposes of rah-rah-America in the wake of Kennedy's promise to get there by the end of the decade and then then subsequent assassination. I don't doubt that we did get there eventually, but maybe we never did.

>>9999241
Based on the fact that you can see the lunar landing sites with a telescope, I'm confident we landed there.
That this even is a topic is definite proof that humans are getting stupider and stupider

>>10002886
>This pic I saw on the net said these men all helped to create NASA and that defo doesn't need double checking, incredible that it's true!

Ron Hubbard, Walt Disney, ad Aleister Crowley didn't help to create NASA.
Go back to your echo chamber
>>>/x/

>>10002890
Measure the temperature of moon light and compare it to the temperature of moon shade. See which is colder.

>>10002900
Hmmm, I think they helped don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon_Working

>>10002906
There is not a single mention of the founding of NASA in that page.

>>10002911
Was Jack Parsons instrumental for NASA?

>>9999241
Apollo Moon Landing -> Real
Hiroshima Atomic Bomb -> Hoax

The moon doesn't even exist if the earth is flat

>>9999241
Yes, and possibly the US/EU and Russia have secret military bases or something there, while playing it off as if there's no interest in the moon.

>>9999317
>also, there is no picture of landing site from let's say Hubble Telescope or anything else
>let's say Hubble Telescope

From Hubbles position the lunar lander has an angular size of around 0.005 arcseconds. Hubbles mirror is 2.4 meters in diameter which gives it an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds. There's no way it will be able to see the lander.

>>10002958
Why the fuck wouldn't you have a 24 hour livestream from the moon by now? And you can't even get some decent pictures of some fucking landing sites? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK KID.

>>10002966
Because we only landed on it 6 times, the last being in 1972.

>>10002966
>Livestream
Moving shit to the Moon is fucking expensive, why would they build a satellite just for the fun of a livestream, who's paying for that?

>And you can't even get some decent pictures of some fucking landing sites?
They exist, it's not everybody elses' fault that you haven't looked for them.
Google's had a photo of the Apollo 11 landing site in maps for something like 4 years

>>10002966
Because it would be take too much effort for basically nothing. The ISS has a live stream but is very close to the earth. Relaying a similar livestream from the moon would require much more hardware. Also if you wanna see images of the landing sites, there is the LRO (lunar reconnaissance orbiter) which has taken images of the landing sites. Just Google it.

>>10002988
How many more fucking years will it take for you to snap out of it?

>>10002992
>Moving shit to the Moon is fucking expensive, why would they build a satellite just for the fun of a livestream, who's paying for that?
ADVERTISERS. ARE YOU CRAZY? THAT IS ADVERTISING GOLD.

>>10002992
>They exist, it's not everybody elses' fault that you haven't looked for them.
I SAID DECENT YOU MONUMENTAL BRAINLET.

>>10003005
DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT NASA DICK IN ANY FURTHER PLEB?

>>10003009
>THAT IS ADVERTISING GOLD.
Really? There's nothing happening on the Moon. A livestream of it would be really boring. Would you watch more than 1-2 minutes of just a bunch of grey rocks?

>>10003009
>I SAID DECENT YOU MONUMENTAL BRAINLET.
Those are literally the best pics we can get, if they're not good enough for you then you're setting yourself up to not be satisfied for a long time? Do you wanna be able to see inside the footsteps they left?

>>10003016
Would you watch more than 1-2 minutes of just a bunch of gay rocks?

Fixed it for you.

>>10003016
>A livestream of it would be really boring.
SAYS THE FUCKING SPACE FANATIC. Why's that boring you fraud? A real space fan would cream at the thought of a livestream from the moon. Imagine a solar and lunar eclipse.

>>10003020
> you're setting yourself up to not be satisfied for a long time
So are you fucknut. You're the idiot falling for it.

>>10003020
>Do you wanna be able to see inside the footsteps they left?

That would require a telescope mirror 23km in diameter if anyone wonders.

>>10003024
>Imagine a solar and lunar eclipse.
Things that wouldn't be visible from a Lunar livestream

>>10003024
So you tune in for ~10 minutes during the eclipse and then never again.

I would totally watch astronauts do science or explore the Moon. But I would not watch some 24/7 stream filming a vast expanse of nothing.` But bringing astronauts would cost even more money, hundreds of billions probably. Way more than any company would pay just to get content to put ads on.

>>10003028
I wasn't wondering but I very much enjoyed that fact

>>10003024
>Imagine a solar eclipse
images of grey rocks gets darker
>imagine a lunar eclipse
image of grey rocks gets darker

whoa dude

>>10003029
A lunar eclipse on Earth is a solar eclipse on the Moon. I agree he's dumb but the Moon does have eclipses.

>>10003024
>Imagine a solar and lunar eclipse.
A lunar eclipse would be pretty cool viewed from the Moon. Imagine the Earth surrounded by a golden ring. Now that would be something.

>>10003041
>Imagine the Earth surrounded by a golden ring
The sizes don't match up right for that, the Earth will block the sun completely.

>>10003043
That would be the case if the Earth had no atmosphere.

>>10003029
>doesn't want a 4K 24 hour livestream from the moon
Fuck off killjoy.

>>10003033
Fuck off killjoy. A rover on the moon could take all sorts of interesting photos and videos of not only the moon, but the earth and the solar system and the stars and meteor showers etc, etc. Only fuckwits like you are against that.

>>10003035
This is called having a shitty imagination. That's why I know you work for NASA.

>>10003055
I'm not against it. I'd love it if there was a rover driving around. But don't pretend that it would be able to pay for itself via ad revenue.

There are no meteor showers on the Moon because there's no atmosphere.

>>10003063
How much would it cost to put a rover on the moon with 4K livestream abilities? This is 2018 technology we're talking about, compared to 60s/70s technology, so it should be much cheaper and easier.

>>10000123
>both sides were under the control of the same international cabals
Conspiratards are always good for a laugh

>>10002992
I remember back in the mid 90's there was a japanese company that wanted to land a bunch of mini-rovers on the moon that had cameras, and sell people time to "drive" it around the moon and sight see.

>>10003091
Why do you believe it's not true?

>>10003095
How much would it cost to put a 4k livestreaming rover on the moon?

>>10003105
Why don't you believe the moon is made of cheese?

>>10003091
He's right doe

>>10002894
can u tho?

>>10002894
ill ask again, can you?
have you seen the landing sites through a telescope? i am willing to bet you have not. you probably dont have access to that powerful of a telescope.

im agnostic about the moon landing. i really want it to be true and dont doubt that it is possible, but the us govt at that time (and now) was incredibly dishonest overall. so much propaganda being pumped out, increasing deep state authority, wars based on ?? reasons. the trend continues to this day.

>>10003156
There's no way to know that anything other than yourself exists. Maybe I'm living in a simulation?
Does the sun still exist when you're not observing it? Maybe your brain is a couple of rocks floating in space interacting with each other in just the right way to simulate your brain? The Holocaust COULD have been fabricated? Also MAYBE there are aliens watching us right now but we don't have the technology to observe them.
Everything is possible, but thinking like that is counterproductive.

>>10003176
>Maybe I'm living in a simulation?
Just think of what kind of gay ass simulation results in your shitposting on a Kamchatka competitive underwater basketweaving fanclub BBS all day.
If some hyper advanced downstream civilization is simulating this then they're obviously ignoring their bigger problems.

>>10002890
I'm actually impressed that you've managed to come up with something more retarded than just thinking it was all fake.

>>10003205
I mean we got enchiladas, tacos, pizza and pasta.
I'm pretty sure those 4 combined would be enough to save any future civilization

>>10003121
At a wild guess, maybe like $500 million since the Opportunity and Spirit rovers on Mars cost about a billion. I'd imagine the actual logistics of livestreaming 4K video from that far away would be kinda difficult though.

In any case it's a lot to pay for what would essentially just be a chatroom for flat earthers.

What are the best draw/rummage/loot/wheel effects in Grixis? I put down my Mairsil the Pretender deck over the summer and I realized it's not doing too well and warrants renovation.

>>10003216
its a very common caveat to the no-moonlanding hypothesis.

>>10003256
just wait for the new ravnica set for new grixis cards (assassin's trophy is probably best removal spell for standard and maybe modern, coming up in new set)

>>10003271
idk why I thought G/B was grixis (it's golgari, my bad)
just run red/black and splash blue

>>10003271
Yeah, Doom Whisperer and that spell-cheating wizard look neat for sure.

>>9999245
Elon will take you to some desert with a red lense on the camera. Unfortunately there will be a terrible dust storm that so happened to have killed you by gunshot, hacksawed you to peieces and set you on fire with gasoline, leaving little remains. Luckly Elon would of managed to survive and set off in the 'spaceship' down the road back to Earth, he will then tell the press Mars was a bad idea and never planning on going back.

>>9999241
>your
you're*

>>10002894

Which telescope did you use?

>>10002928
No. He was an engineer, NASA had thousands of them

>>10004082
Who founded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory?

>>10001792
>loads
I think I'm reading one right now.

>>10004086
In 1943, von Kármán, Malina, Parsons, and Forman established the Aerojet Corporation to manufacture JATO rockets. The project took on the name Jet Propulsion Laboratory in November 1943

>>9999241
1 of the apollo missions was faked.

figure out which one.

>>9999241
It is not a question of opinion, it is extraordinarily well documents.

>>9999253
>evidence and arguments for it being staged are weak and stupid,

>>9999274
>But one of the problem is Van Allen belts being deadly, and exactly on a way to Moon.

Good example.

>>9999317
Nor would you expect there to be -- Hubble cannot resolve details as small as the LM descent stage (largest Apollo artifacts on the moon)

The landing sites have been imaged by probes in lunar orbt, but when that is pointed out you guys then start saying THOSE are faked -- in essence, any evidence, you will claim is faked, while ignoring the huge holes in your conspiracy theory.

>>9999566
>Why don't you try applying this retarded level of skepticism to things that don't fit your worldview?

More relevant to this thread, they should apply it to the "It Was Faked" hypothesis, which is untenable for a huge number of reasons.

>>9999681
>Ever see 2001 space odyssey?

He thinks 2001 was shown live.

>>9999964
Sure, but the moon, sans reflectors, was not as -- you know -- reflective. You can see the difference when bouncing off the reflectors compared to the bare regolith.

>>10000000

>>10000122
>I guess they just don't want to be whiny.

They were extraordinarily whiny, they went whole-hog into sour grapes, "We never were trying to go to the moon anyway" mode.

Of course, after the Soviet Union fell and the secrecy was lifted, it was obvious this was not the case.

>>10004658

That's bullshit if Russia wanted they could have went to the moon they just knew its pointless.

Need I remind you nasa and spacex buy russian engines so their rockets work?

>>10002480
Dude, don't sprain something, reaching that far.

>>10002503
Then you need to explain this bit, among other things:

>Additionally, this expedition somehow acquired 400kg of Moon rocks. It's been 36 years since the world learned about Lunar meteorites and in those 36 years a grand total of 190kg have been found, mostly not in Antarctica but in deserts in North Africa.

How did NASA manage to find 400 kg of them, when in the past 36 years only 190 kg have been found, mostly not even in Anatarctica?

>>10002615
>lol, wat the government got Average Joe moonlander steel worker to lie about what he was really working on?


There's actually a more subtle point to come out of the logistics question.

In order to mount this huge conspiracy, they had to have thousands of workers build equipment to specs that could make a moon flight. Numerous attempts were made to build acceptable hardware, hardware (and software) that were not up to standards were were not acceptable. But for some reason, in spite of having built the equipment, they then faked the mission?

They built all the stuff they needed to go to the moon -- at that point, the easiest way to have everybody believe they went was just to go ahead and go.

>>10002649
Any of the workers on the various contractors, or at NASA< would know if they did not actually build what it is claimed they built. They had to build engines that created safe and powerful amounts of thrust, they had to build fuel tanks that could stand up to the various stresses they would encounter, they have to build an onboard computer that could handle the needs of the mission while staying within the mass allowance... They had to build the stuff that would do what it needed to do to go to the moon.

If they didn't actually build that, they'd know, and you have to believe a conspiracy where hundreds or thousands of people knew it was fake and nobody ever spilled the beans.

If they DID build it as specified, then that explains why nobody ever ratted them out -- but you now have to believe they built the equipment needed to go to the moon but just never used it because... reasons.

>>10002849
Interesting question.

Occasionally they try to answer, and reveal how little they know about the Saturn boosters.

>>10002894
>Based on the fact that you can see the lunar landing sites with a telescope,

Stop that.

No Erthbound telescope can resolve anything as small as the Apollo hardware, so no Earthbound telescope can contribute anything to the discussion.

Nor can Hubble.

Lunar orbital probes can, and have, but then they scream "fake!" as if that settles anything. If Hubble could do it, they'd say that was faked too. If your backyard telescope could do it, they'd still scram "fake!" but their explanations for that would have to get even sillier.

>>10003009
>>10003015

>>10004662
Retard:

The actual hardware they were planning to use is sitting in museums in Russia. They wanted to go, and to tbeat the US, very, very badly. But in the end, they split their resources between two possible missions, their Soyuz craft developed problems on an unmanned circumlunar test flight, and their big booster to mount and Apollo-equivalent landing mission kept blowing up.

In the end, they even launched an unmanned probe to race Apollo 11 to a moon landing,in hopes of scooping up a hatfull of lunar soil and beating Apollo back to Earth with it. That one crashed attempting to land.

>>10004698
I think you're forgetting a key piece of information here - the people you're talking about who designed/built the rocket were none other than Nazis shipped over after WW2.

Now remember this too - why would someone working at NASA expose the fakery when they were "supposedly" in a race against Russia for dominance. It would be humiliating at a time when they needed the complete opposite. They of course, working for the government, would have signed NDAs too.

>>10004789
There were hundreds of designrs and thousands of workers building Apollo hardware. Yes, a few of them were Germans who came over with von Braun after WWII, though many of those had left the program for better paying positions before Kennedy launched the race to the moon and NASA began to swim around in money, for a time.

>>10004789
>why would someone working at NASA expose the fakery when they were "supposedly" in a race against Russia for dominance. It would be humiliating at a time when they needed the complete opposite. They of course, working for the government, would have signed NDAs too.

So you honestly believe that thousands of people -- most of whom were not Germans, as if that somehow makes them immune to whistle-blowing -- kept a secretof that magnitude for all these years AFTER the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Have you ever interacted with a human being?

>>10004789
>why would someone working at NASA expose the fakery when they were "supposedly" in a race against Russia for dominance

Why would Russia calmly lose the race without exposing the fakery of their rivals?

>>9999303
Zoomers believe anything they see on Facebook.

>>10004662
They definitely wanted to land on the moon, they just didn't have a rocket that could do the job without exploding. They even kept trying after Apollo 11 had landed and returned.

Main problems were the Soviets couldn't into large cylindrical fuel tanks or large rocket engines. That made their moon rocket less efficient and far more complicated, having more stages and many more engines per stage. As such it had 4 failed launches and was canceled.

>>10004662
Also, SpaceX manufactures it's own engines. The Merlin family and soon the Raptor family of engines.

You're referring to the RD-180 engine, which was a great engine and the Soviets deserve plenty of credit for designing it, but it was never used on any crewed NASA missions. It's also soon to be replaced by the American BE-4 engine.

Russia's space industry has done really well exporting tech and selling Soyuz tickets and commercial launches for the last decade or so, but they got lazy and didn't invest in new tech. Now they have no reusables, no heavy/super-heavy vehicles, and soon no one will be buying Soyuz tickets.

>>10004819
>There were hundreds of designrs and thousands of workers building Apollo hardware.
So what? How many actually needed to know that the moon landings themselves were going to be faked?
>though many of those had left the program for better paying positions before Kennedy launched the race to the moon and NASA began to swim around in money, for a time.
Jej - those Nazis living the American dream. Go Nazis!
>So you honestly believe that thousands of people -- most of whom were not Germans, as if that somehow makes them immune to whistle-blowing -- kept a secretof that magnitude for all these years AFTER the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Have you ever interacted with a human being?
Again, straw man argument. How many actually needed to know the moon landings were going to be faked?

>>10004821
Russia's coat of arms is the double headed eagle. I'll let you work out what that means.

>>10002366
>Just the fact that NASA went to Antarctica before the moon landings if extremely suspicious.
Fact that NASA visited closest thing on Earth to other world before visiting other world.
Yes very suspicious, why would NASA try to do sensible thing and gain experience potentially usefull in their current task?

>>10002504
>hurr faith in a book of myths written down by schizophrenic patriarchs of a bronze age raiding tribe is just like faith in science
No it isn't. Your opinion is retarded and so are you.

>>10003176
The Holocaust was fabricated though. Bad example.

>>9999241
Yes.

The more interesting question is, why has the last decade seen the explosive rise of retarded conspiracy theories about how the Earth is flat, we never went to the Moon, etc.

My take is that it's fueled by distrust in authority. Corporations and governments have been wrapping their shit up in the flag of ¡SCIENCE! for so long now, and been caught with their pants down on so many occasions, that trust in science itself has been seriously eroded.

You can only tell people that, e.g., "our new synthetic opiods totally aren't addictive" so many times before people just stop believing. Corporations use science as a marketing tool, with the result that people start looking at it as propaganda by default.

Combine that mindset with a generation raised on seemless photorealistic CGI, and all of this emerges quite organically.

Another factor is the eternal boomer turning his back in space so he could focus on weed, cummies, and feeding the third world. Their lack of will is the direct reason we don't already have bases on Mars. If we did, no one would be wondering if Kubrick faked the Moon landings on a sound stage.

This generation lacks a true treat to their livelihood/nation.

World wars have a habit of shaping a nation, redpilling the masses, and creating strong individuals.

>>9999241
Pic related shows an image taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo 15 landing site. Visible are the descent stage, the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, and the Lunar Roving Vehicle, along with the tracks made by the latter.

>>10006879
suppose to link to
>>10006860

>>10006860
That might be a factor, but the driving force behind it is the prevalence of the internet and social media. It used to be that you could have some wacky idea and maybe your friends would laugh at you and that would be it. Now you can connect with thousands of other people who share whatever crazy idea you can possibly come up with, you start watching youtube videos about it, which causes youtube's algorithm to recommend more wacky shit, you see comments from thousands of people who are all confirming your beliefs, and pretty soon you've been absorbed into an entirely different world.

>>10006906
True, the Internet in general and social media in particular are key enabling technologies. They enable echo chambers to form, and make it inevitable that society fractures into a thousand fragmentary echo chambers. But the technologies don't determine specifically which echo chambers will gain in popularity.

>>10006860
I would say that fact that intenet become more accesable more time, giving voice to more people and reaching more people is also factor in it.

>>10003132
He's not doe

>>10003405
>>/x/

>>10002384
>gonna fake the moon landing
>still build and launch a giant rocket capable of putting men on the moon

Do you see the problem here?

>>10002464
>>10002464
Thats just what THEY want you to think.

>>9999241
Yes, you fucking idiot. Shit like this is intentionally pushed to confuse and mislead people. There is a monolithic conspiracy that controls the most powerful governments in the world and you're wasting brain power thinking about the moon landing.

>>10002503
So they went to secretly collect moon rocks but let the public know about the expedition? You're clearly smarter than all of those scientists and government agents put together. They should have put some one smart like you in charge of the conspiracy.

>>10002662
What would a real lunar mission look like to you?

>>10006860
I don't think its really a mystery why we never set up a moon base. The amount of Saturn V launches necessary to set up a sustainable base would be prohibitively expensive. Its just not economically feasible to go to the moon or mars with expendable rockets.

>>10006880
"No, that's fake. Looks like I'm right again."
- Every Conspiratard

Yes. In thruth they found alie
[math]\color{red}{\text{(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)}}[/math]

>>9999241
>2018
>still believing the moon exists

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

>>10000077
checked
the moon landing happened and you are a fucking retard to believe it didn't happen

>>10008393
This

>>10000126

Pretty much.

>>10000003
>>10000000
lets see

>the tracks on the surface are still there

Has anyone here even seen the Moon?

>>9999312
The Apollo missions were independently tracked by numerous third parties including the most interested party- the SovUnion- as well as observatories in the UK, France, and Italy, as well as many privately owned university observatories in the US. The tracking included visual sightings and interceptions of radio communications.

Ffs the fact that the Soviets didn't immediately call bullshit when they were watching the skies is proof that they happened. The fact that the head of their lunar program- Vasiliy Mishin- was accused of failing to beat the Americans (the obvious implication being the Soviets really did believe we went to the Moon) and that he himself accepted we went there is just the icing on the cake.

Has anyone who worked on the program ever come out and said it's fake? Or actual engineers/filmmakers/etc. saying "we couldn't have done that" or "it was totally filmed"

I know this wouldn't be a particularly strong point against a possible conspiracy (Bletchley Park kept the Ultra project to crack the Enigma code a secret for decades) but it would be interesting if there were people "in the know," as it were. who called bs on the official story. Like with 9/11 we have a not insignificant number of engineers and military and intelligence community figures saying the official story is utter bullcrap.

>>9999241
you shouldn't post threads like this when a simple google search will give you your answers
the answer is yes, obviously, but I'm not gonna give you reasons cause I'm sick of hearing this dumb fucking question
sage for shit thread

>>10008330
I never really thought about this part much but when you think about it, it actually kinda just ends the argument right there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

How about the fact that sped-up twice, it looks exactly like people hopping on earth? Also, why would astronauts move slower as if they're encumbered if there is less gravity? Shouldn't they be able to jump higher and run faster? You'd think...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BkRQ85NrKk

>>10010280
Imagine being underwater and then jumping, it's like that.

>>10010280
Great questions. Have another.

>>10010292
Explain how moving in an atmosphere-less, 1/6th gravity environment would look anything like hopping underwater on earth, if you can? Water creates more resistance than air, can you even argue that there would be more resistance on the moon? On what basis beside grainy, decades old film?

>>10010348
Have another*, the right pic this time

>>9999241
>can go to the moon
>can’t regrow teeth
I don’t get it

>>10010352
The Earth makes a full rotation *relative to the Sun* every 24 hours. Thus it is always facing the sun at noon. It makes a full rotation relative to the stars in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

>>10010352
When I see images like this I realise there can never really be any true intellectual discourse or dialogue with people like you, because I simply cannot comprehend being this goddamn stupid.

>>10010425
I'm sorry you feel conflicted in that way.
I, on the other hand, can relate to your assumptive attitude easily, as I too at one time believed as you do now, in the "factual, scientific truth" as it was presented to me in school (which I did rather well in), and on TV. Only later when I became pressed to question everything I thought I knew through formative experiences, did I ever dare look beyond what I had already concluded was true, no longer stuck on the self-ridicule from the possibility of asking a wrong question.

>>9999274
>what is orbital inclination?

>>10010179
>9/11
I've always believed that the planes didn't bring the towers down, and wouldn't have, but did make them unstable and nigh impossible to repair, so the government elected to have an emergency controlled demolition done to bring them down safely into their own footprint to prevent them from tipping over and flattening a city block
the towers were filled with asbestos anyhow, and needed to demolished eventually so it was just convenient

10010280
>mouth breathing retard doesn't know how bulky and cumbersome the spacesuits were because he never bothered to learn anything before shitposting furiously about it
good ole reruns

>>10010541
Planes were sleight of hand. Insurance fraud was only part of the plan.

>>10010543
>>tfw he didn't go to space camp

>>10010548
i dont actually want to go into space i just want to go to space camp over and over until i eventually die

>>10010541
>so the government elected to have an emergency controlled demolition done to bring them down safely
w...what?

>>9999329
No, only a few people ever went to the moon.

>>10010403
>>10010484
notice flat earther's literally never respond to concise refutations

>>10010622
when you have a fuck ass massive hole in the side of a skyscraper because a planet rammed into it, the weight becomes unbalanced
this unbalanced, paired with damage to the support structure can cause it to fall down in a direction you don't like
controlled demolitions work by destroying supports in the key locations needed to force and implosion of the building, so it goes straight down, not down and in a direction to fall on top of people
I used "government" for a catchall for which ever body would decide if shit is fucked hard enough and could take action to unfuck it

>>10011195
Look up WTC 7 anon. WTC 7 was objectively wired for demolition.

Rigging buildings of that size (because if one of them was wired the others were as well) is NOT something you can just do on the spot, and especially not with emergency personnel still in the blast area. They were wired, but it was coldly premeditated, not some desperate last measure.

>>9999253
science

>>10010541
>it's Terrorist and goverment both responsible
9/11 conspiracies are little refreshing in flatard threads.
Still dumb.

>>10010541
>to prevent them from tipping over and flattening a city block
nah senpai they just did it for that imperialist oil money innit B)

>>10010512
This. How do you /sci/ smarty pants not know about this? I don't even have a degree and I know about it.

>>10010512
>>10013018
Because most conspiracy theorists exhibit 2 dimensional thinking.
Consider also that a number of the moon astronauts got cancer anyway despite avoiding the majority of the radiation.

>>10012452
I still find it funny how people repeat the jet fuel meme despite blacksmiths heating steal rods to a similar temperature and bending them with their pinky fingers. The steel doesn't need to melt, it just has to be heated to the point that the thousands of tons on top of it causes it to lose integrity, then it's a fucking jenga tower coming down.

>>10013926
>it's a fucking jenga tower coming down

Interesting thought... thats exactly how the towers should have fallen. So weird that they collapsed neatly inward.

Of course it's all just conspiritard nonsense anyhow; the NIST released a thorough and rigorous report afterall. It's not like they couldn't even analyze any of the actual steel beams from the wreckage because they were gathered up and sold to China before the bodies were even cold.

Nah.

Besides, its not like the government has ever lied about using experimental drugs on civilians, lied about WMDs so they could go to war with a sovereign nation, lied about illegally spying on citizens, lied about selling guns to cartels, lied about funding terrorism, or anything CRAZY like that!

>>10014528
>thats exactly how the towers should have fallen
[citation needed]

>>10010484
Neat, so you're saying that Yggdrasil is real? Can't wait to enter Valhalla

The russian probes detected massive radiation belts surrounding the earth and that's why they cancelled all manned moonflight projects.
Meanwhile there are pictures of the NASA director side by side with Kubrick...

I'd trust the first country that sent person in space than someone who supposedly lost the schematics of their moon rocket.

>>9999241
The Soviets said that NASA was on the moon.

Would the communists lie? No of course not, so NASA was on the moon.

My dad was a Mechanical Engineer in Crew Systems until retiring in 1975. Seems like on of th was it more than 10,000 employees would have found a chink in the Armor. A few items NASA had made or design. Velcro, tang, gator aide, flexible looking tube. Pushed development of computers. There are a set of mirrors left on the moon by the Apollo 11 mission. They can send a Lazer bounce it back and measure the distance to the moon. Apollo 13 only has 1 hour of breathable air when Crew Systems device, made from materials aboard the spacecraft, when how to make was radioed to the crew.

>>10014945
Radiation belts around the Earth were not discovered by the Russians, they were discovered by a Geiger counter aboard Explorer , an American satellite.

Why they are not really a factor in the Apollo program (or a soviet lunar mission, had they been able to launch one) can be Googled faster than I can type it.

>>10000126
this

>>10016205
>can be Googled faster than I can type it.
You don't seriously believe Anon is looking for what actually happened, do you? He's just here to be edgy. Of course he knows he can use a search engine. What's the fun in that?