/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10820835
>Try and prove that it even happened to begin with.

>>10820839
Not him and flat earthers are retarded, but this means you have to prove it did happen (and being literally video taped is as much as anyone can do in the way of proving it besides time travelling you back there), not that he has to prove it didn't happen, as you can't prove that you didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.

>>10820835
There is a mirror they placed on the moon on one of the missions so if you shine a laser at the moon and you test for its return then you know it was real. Havent really heard anyone talk about this and it is a 100% repeatable experiment

>>10820873
Maybe NASA secretly sent a probe there instead

I'm tired of this meme. If the moon landing really was faked, and the evidence could be found by normal people, then why didn't the Soviets reveal it to the world?

>>10820873
If that’s true it sounds like an easily repeatable experiment which would serve as a triumph of scientific innovation that would be parades as a monument to human creativity and critical thinking. And yet, NASA refuses to provide moon footage because “it was taped over” (that is the actual excuse they gave) and cannot provide a timeline for moon return missions because “the technology was destroyed and is too expensive to recreate” even though the technology in your smart phone is more powerful than half the tech NASA had at their disposal back then.

With a this evidence against it I find it hard to believe NASA wouldn’t have a quickly accessible video or exhibit of this setup to quickly disprove skeptics and inspire future scientists. And yet, few people including myself have ever heard of this and fewer have witnessed it.

Sounds fishy to me, anon.

>>10820835
Try and prove that polar bears exist. Pro tip: you can't.
Try and prove that dragons doesn't exist. Pro tip: you can't.
Try and prove that anything at all exists. Pro tip: you can't.

>>10821170
Because they were dumb after Stalin

>>10820873
>Havent really heard anyone talk about this and it is a 100% repeatable experiment

There is a Big Bang Theory episode centered around that.

Also: While I do believe that men landed on the moon this is not 100% proof. You can place a mirror on the moon using robots.

>>10821170
/thread

>>10820835
You actually can prove it. You just need to take a very strong laser and point it at the exact location of the moon landing site, it reflects back. Alternatively, you can take a very strong telescope and point it there to look at it.

>>10820835
The original moon landing was faked. However they did land on the moon to film moonraker.
James Bond actually did those scenes without a space suit because someone forgot to tell him you can't breathe in space.

>>10820852
>as you can't prove that you didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990
You know too much

>>10820835
Try and prove your IQ is at least 100

Pro tip: you can't

>>10821229
>Try and prove that polar bears exist. Pro tip: you can't.
go to the arctic and be eaten by one.

I take the position that we did go to the moon but some of the footage is fake, especially apollo 11's

>>10821206
Notice how he avoids the point by talking about something completely different, then presents a false narrative of NASA not providing footage when the footage is publicly available on YouTube, then attempts to conflate a rocket and moon lander not currently existing since no one has built one with technology not being advanced enough.

This is how an /x/tard operates, by misrepresentation, innuendo and exaggeration.

>>10822082
One of the oddest arguments I've heard is that the photos captured of he moon are too free of errors and the didgy lighting

The Manhattan Project suffered several leaks, despite being incredibly highly classified (see: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg).

From the next iPhone to Uncle Sam bombing the shit out of Iraqi civilians to HSBC laundering thousands for the cartels - any human endeavour involving more than one person is usually always leaked.

But the Moon landings subvert all this, and for all the money in the world and for all the threats to the lives of the proponents of the conspiracy, nobody has every broken?

>>10821206
>And yet, NASA refuses to provide moon footage because “it was taped over”
The original tapes were taped over, there are still plenty of copies of it around. In fact, there's a replay of the Apollo 11 mission with tons of footage being played right now. https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/ The clips are on youtube so you can replay them at your own leisure. Stop pretending that NASA is secretive like the DoD or NSA. It's a very public agency.

>>10821604
These LRO images settle the debate.

>>10822154

There was never a "debate" to begin with. To call it a "debate" would imply two or more sides with viable (if not quite equivalent) standing and evidentiary support.

I doubt many people have seen this evidence before.

Moon landing completely debunked, game over: http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

>>10822090
well those retards need to look in the image archives in link related to know that's not true
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Apollo
They take 8 and sometimes 10 shots of the same damn thing from slightly different angles and 3/4 of them come out looking meh 1/8 of them look like absolute ass and the last one looks pretty damn good. It's especially bad when they're in orbit. I guess zero g makes it hard to hold a camera still.

>>10820835
In order to reasonably claim that the moon landing was fake you have to be deep down in a rabbit hole where a fake moon landing is not a major hoax but just a minor detail and I doubt most moon hoaxers are even close to that rabbit hole.
As
>>10821170
said, the soviets would be compelled to blow the lid. Which means they are in on it, as the soviets were controlled opposition. The implications of this realization call everything into question that exists. But do most mainstream moon hoaxers do that?

>>10824464
this is actually an oft overlooked point with interesting implications but /sci/ is too low iq to understand such things

>>10821604
why is there no Apollo 13?

>>10824464
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to realise, the soviet union was literally founded by a wall street funded coup, look at the work of Anthony C Sutton on exposing the financial connections.

It is real, and we measured that moon is getting further and further from earth only after it?

Funny fact, if system is balanced and you do one "measure" you can fuck up EVERYTHING.

>>10824493
the founders of Soviet Union were exterminated in late 20's

Is it good idea to giving somebody power such as money?

Like... Having enough money it's like having some override switch for everything.

>>10824356
Moon landing fantasists can't explain this.

>>10820835
I don't get why you would believe the moon landing was faked. Spaceflight into earth orbits has always been pretty easy, repeated countless times and is well documented. Going from there to the moon is not a big deal. You just need a bigger rocket. So going to earth orbit is possible but going the moon needed to be faked?

>>10824585
Getting back from the moon is the hard part.

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~sdb/Talks/Moon-Hoax-ADAS.pdf

>>10824473
Damn you figured us out.

>>10824515
>Who is Stalin?

>>10821329
This

Bumping ebic bait thread

>>10824690
the guy who killed them all

>>10822064
I want to die

>>10820835
Daily reminder Moon Landing Hoaxers come in only three flavors: debate trollers, grifters, and prankster kids. The one thing they all have in common: they have no creative accomplishments to call their own.
Try to prove me wrong.

>>10824792
>they have no creative accomplishments to call their own.
Their ridiculous conspiracy theories are pretty funny though, so that could be an accomplishment. My favorite one that I've seen on this board was...

>Sometime in the annals of history Scotland and Russia had double-headed eagles on their flag
>Not at the time time, nor have it anymore, but at some point either had it
>Therefore the United States and Soviet Union secretly worked together to fake the moon landing

>>10824823
Yeah, I suppose good liars have to be creative.

>>10824823
Yeah, I suppose good liars have to be creative. But it's feeding off an pre-existing 'thing.' It's not really creating, it's taking an easy road to destroying something that they could never hope to accomplish on their own.

>>10820835
You moon hoaxers are hilarious

>let me intrroduce 1630 conspiracy theories to explain this 1 conspiracy theory
It's simple. We went to the moon because it's the simplest explanation. Easy fucking peasy.

>>10824792
>>10824823
>>10824838
>>10824874
You faggots can't argue against this: http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

>>10822071
>>10821229
all the people supposedly eaten by "polar bears" were actually abducted by the Frost Giants. polar bears are a hoax to cover up their existence and stop people from looking at the North Pole. all specimens in captivity are just heavily bleached brown bears, which is why they always look so sad and unhealthy in zoos (the bleaching process is bad for them).
think about it: literally all species of bears are omnivorous forest animals (the panda is even almost vegetarian), but they expect you to believe that there's this special pale bear that lives on sea ice and only eats meat? and it's somehow the meanest, scariest bear of all? bullshit.

prove me wrong. pro tip: you can't.

>>10824473
>shut it down

Fact that somebody can be faked, doesn't mean it never happened.

>>10824906
You're right - I don't have the time or energy to waste on idiotic shit that some off-site asshole has posted.
Now... if *you* posted some shit and wanted to stand on your own... I'd have a lot of fun ripping you to pieces.

>>10824910
A friend of mine went camping on svalbard a couple years ago, their camp was attacked by a polar bear of of his tent mates was killed and he took a couple of large gashes, he's lucky to be alive to be honest.

>>10824757
Retarded Trot/Conservative point of view

>>10824906
The pictures in that link are from the Lunar Landing Research Facility. Used to train astronauts in landing on the moon without having to leave Earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Facility

This wasn't used to fake the landings as the landing footage started at an altitude so high that the facility couldn't have possibly reached. https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/mobile/

On top of that, if the landings were faked then the Soviets would have known about it and exposed it. The Soviets didn't do this, instead they confirmed the landings which is something no moon hoaxer can explain.

>>10821604
>Alternatively, you can take a very strong telescope and point it there to look at it.
no you retardomaster idiot. No telescope is strong enough to see it from earth, those images are from an orbiter thats in orbit around the moon

>>10820852
>as you can't prove that you didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990.
I have bad news for you anon:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Case

you should better confess

>>10824924
Frost Giant attack. sorry about your friend and his traveling companion, but they'll never see true justice; the governments of the world are committed to keeping Frost Giants secret from the people.

(out-of-character, I'm faced with the remote but unpleasant possibility of traveling to Svalbard for research in a few years. how common is that sort of occurrence?)

>>10820839
OP's money are going to be used to send drone to moon to look for a flag.

If flag is there not, he's right.

>>10824919
why does this hill keep showing up on different Apollo missions?

>>10824919
>>10824928
Why aren't there tire tracks either behind or in front the wheels?

>>10824939
these frost giants wouldn't happen to be 12 foot tall and weigh 1,500lb would they?

>>10824945
You have only shown one picture. Maybe you should have posted a series of pictures and compared hills to proove your argument. Then again it'll disprove your argument because the same hill didn't appear in all Apollo missions.

>>10824947
This image was during Apollo 17 where Cernan and Schmitt repaired a broken fender on their rover. Them moving around the rover disturbed the soil around the rover, covering the tracks it had made.

You still haven't answered the question about the Soviets. How were the Soviets fooled? Were they in on it? Please provide evidence.

>>10824945
Why do you post one image and make a claim that is otherwise unsupported? All imagery is online and attributed. You're implying you have personally seen this one mountain in imagery from several missions. You need to post the links on the NASA sites that give metadata. Until then, you're a liar.

>>10824960
>Them moving around the rover disturbed the soil around the rover, covering the tracks it had made.

>>10824947
That's a good one. I did not know about this:
>>10824960
But still, I would have expected *some* vestige track marks, and I think there is a bit behind the wheel.

>>10824960
>You still haven't answered the question about the Soviets. How were the Soviets fooled? Were they in on it? Please provide evidence.
Yes they had to be in on it - the fact the landings were fake is proof of this.

>>10824939
(real life for work? not that likely they just had really bad luck the bear deterrent [basically a trip wire surrounding the camp that triggers a shotgun blank] failed and the guide they were with's rifle jammed)

>>10824968
Yeah. Now, if you had imagery from the other three wheels, we might be able to compare. Then you'd have a case, silly giggle girl.

>>10824964
what about >>10824660 ?

>>10824974
Who is V'ger?
- V'Ger is he who seeks the Creator.
Who is the Creator?
- The one whom V'Ger seeks.

>>10824980
Sorry - off-site crap. You really need to formulate your own thoughts.

landing unit dust cloud?

>>10824973
>But still, I would have expected *some* vestige track marks, and I think there is a bit behind the wheel.
Well considering that the wheel in the image was the one with a broken fender, then the most on-foot activity would be around that wheel. So it's expected that the tracks around that wheel would be disturbed to the point that they would be unrecognizable.

>>10824974
That's circular reasoning. Find actual evidence.

>>10824947
Come to think of it... even if this was a staged shot why wouldn't there be a track? The thing still has to get there, and using a crane to drop it sounds a good deal sillier than rolling it in. Disturbance still sounds viable.

>>10824978
I think there's a clear case with just the one wheel, although there would be a track created by the front wheel too if the rover was driving forward.

Your explanation is ludicrous and you know it.

>>10824995
The stage was on a platform so they had to crane it in.

>>10825004
>The stage was on a platform
First, prove how the Soviets were fooled. Second, prove that this stage existed. Third, prove that it was on a platform. You are making alot of assumptions here.

>>10825004
Really? And you have evidence of this... how?
Wow.. this is *exactly* like flat Earth. How much more stuff can you make up?

>>10824968
>>10825000
every photo with tracks difficult to see is from where the rover was parked and then astronauts did something in its vicinity, kicking up dust (which disperses more easily in lower gravity). in some pictures with wider fields, you can even see that there are clear tracks left, and it's only the area immediately around the rover where tracks are obliterated.
no amount of women_laughing_with_salad can help your piss-poor argument.

>>10825000
Nice tripos, but this is a case where you're pressing the one and only point you think has a chance of any hope of 'proof'. Yet there are now four points against it and you won't let it go.
1 - Don't have imagery from surrounds (a look from a little farther away would show the track)
2 - There *is* a bit of track there, behind the outer edge of the wheel.
3 - Lowering vs. rolling (why build/use a platform?!)
4 - Disturbance is a valid point.
Your insistence this is proof is ludicrous.

>>10825010
>prove how the Soviets were fooled
They weren't, they were in on it.
>prove that this stage existed
>>10825024
Pic related, fake lunar surface is the platform, had to be thick enough to have craters etc.

>>10825010
rather than the soviets, what about the chinese?

>>10825030
So all the tracks are covered up but the footprints aren't? There has to be tracks in that picture, there's no way they would have kicked up enough dust to cover them up.

>>10825054
Why is there mould on the equipment?

>>10825058
>They weren't, they were in on it.
Another assuption with no evidence. How intellectually lazy are you?

>Pic related, fake lunar surface is the platform
Source on the picture? A random picture proves nothing.

You're still just making assumptions with no evidence.

>>10825065

How do you know that's mold?

>>10825065
Odd how that doesn't explain why the Soviets didn't blow the whole hoax apart.

>>10825058
I had to reverse image to figure out what the hell you're trying to show. Are you telling me that you think that cartoony training pad is the same thing as in the imagery from all over the surface that supposedly faked? Are you that primitive?

>>10825068
>Another assuption with no evidence. How intellectually lazy are you?
They were funded by Wall Street. See: https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-3.pdf

>>10820835
If america was so superior and everyone else so dumb that they were able to fake it 6 times and nobody at the time was able to see anything wrong, I don't think they'd have left so many "obvious signs" that it was faked.

I know this is a bait thread but I can't believe some people genuinely think that the fact that we see no tire tracks, no visible stars or that the flag is not supposed to stay straight are valid arguments.

>>10825069
Because it looks like how mould grows - what is it?

>>10825065
Aside from a spurious claim that it's mould, it is probably soil from the surface. Notice it is resting on the ground, so it's at foot level and soil could easily have been kicked onto it. Gracefulness was not a strong point in those suits and under unfamiliar gravity.

>>10825059
>what about the chinese?
In the 60's and 70's? Technologically irrelevant. Didn't even have formal relations with the US before Nixon went over.

>>10825081
So some guys helped the Soviets during their revolution. That doesn't answer how the Soviets and Americans were working together on the moon landings.

This also brings into question the entire Cold War. Every single interaction between these two powers will now have to be explained by your conspiracy theory. Especially the Cuban Missile Crisis which happened before Apollo and definitely showed that the two powers did not like eachother. Again, more assumptions instead of evidence from you.

>>10825094
Israel was always the biggest conduit of the 2nd world war, JFK was shot by a soviet jew.

>>10825076
Pic related, same place, one taken at night with sand poured onto the surface. Also notice the black background in the one taken at day time - wonder why that's there?

>>10825085
Aside from the spurious claim it's soil - it's also got a green tint to it?

>>10825098
>Israel was always the biggest conduit of the 2nd world war,
No? Israel didn't exist until after WW2. And how is this relevant to Apollo?

>JFK was shot by a soviet jew.
Relevancy to Apollo? Also I thought according to your theory, the Soviets and Americans were working together on Apollo? Since Kennedy was the biggest public advocate for Apollo, it doesn't make sense that a Soviet would kill him.

Stop with the assumptions.

>>10825098
>Israel was always the biggest conduit of the 2nd world war
Israel didn't exist in the second world war you mongoloid.

>>10825099
>wonder why that's there?
Not really... It's to help simulate the dark sky.
Anyway... do you see a similarity between the simulator lander and the real thing?

>>10825101
>it's also got a green tint to it?
Seriously? Have you ever edited imagery? Green is a very, very common tint in dark areas of photos. You have no proof it's mould, I have no proof it's soil.

>>10825143
In that same photo, look at all the dark areas. It's all green. Must be a very moldy platform indeed. Maybe this was all in England.

>>10825130
>Not really... It's to help simulate the dark sky.
Yes... to block out the surrounding environment when faking the landing.
>Anyway... do you see a similarity between the simulator lander and the real thing?
If only there was a way they could replace the lander somehow...
And pic related, what an incredible feat of engineering it is, cost 30 billion in today's money, even the panels don't fit properly and is fitted with high tech gold foil.

>>10825106
What does ww2 have to do with the moon?

>>10825058
Good grief! That's not a platform! That's a beam of the support gantry that holds the crane for the simulator. It's in the foreground, the patch of ground id much farther below. This shot on the right
>>10825099
was taken from the right side of pic related.
Rolling in the rover is still the easiest. Especially if you want to fake having driven around.

>>10825143
Absolutely bizarre stretch to keep the fantasy alive. There's no way lunar regolith would look like that stuck to the container, it looks far more like mould, so the reasonable conclusion is that it is mould.

>>10825184
>And pic related, what an incredible feat of engineering it is, cost 30 billion in today's money, even the panels don't fit properly and is fitted with high tech gold foil.
Thats a cover. The reason why it looks weak is because the lander didn't need a strong sturdy outer skin. Why? Because it was going to be used in an environment without an atmosphere.

How about you point out actual technical issues you find with Apollo instead of pointing at images saying "it look weird!". There are tons of technical information on Apollo out there, if it were all a hoax then surely there has to be a mistake somewhere in the technical information. Such as lack of explanation for a piece of equipment that's important to the actual mission but wasn't seen in the public videos of the mission (such as the programing used). Or a use flaw in the flight plan that looks fine at first, but doesn't respect spaceflight mechanics.

>>10825184
>Yes... to block out the surrounding environment when faking the landing.
No, you paranoid fool. It's to help make the simulation realistic so those practicing get better feel for the whole environment they'll be working in. How could you possibly not consider that/ Oh! Because you're either incredibly (meaning not believably) dense, or (more likely) you're a basement edgelord who thinks he's being clever (protip: you're not).
>>10825184
>what an incredible feat of engineering it is,
Incredible to you. It' a testament to what humans can accomplish with motivation and unlimited funds.

>>10825191
>Rolling in the rover is still the easiest. Especially if you want to fake having driven around.
Not with all the craters in the way.

>>10825193
If that is indeed mold and the Apollo missions were faked, then why didn't the USSR expose the hoax? They had all the reason and ability to do so.

>>10825202
>Not with all the craters in the way.
It's designed to roll around the surface. With craters.

>>10825195
Why have a cover at all when it's so patheticly weak and embarrassing?

>>10825218
The amazing mechanisms of the conspiratard mind.
>The United States has managed to perfectly fake a moon landing program with days of footage and mountains of technical documents and no flaw has been found for decades
>Their moon rover couldn't mount the lunar craters that it was expected to drive over

Amazing.

>>10825225
Thermal protection. It just had to work, not look good.

>>10825199
>It's to help make the simulation realistic so those practicing get better feel for the whole environment they'll be working in.
Wow a stretch of black board is really going to help the astronauts in their moon landing simulation...

>>10825233
You seem to think it helps in faking an entire landing and moonwalk. So... problem??

>>10825218
They didn't want to risk breaking it - the footage of the rover in the Apollo videos was actually a scaled down model being remote controlled around a little moon stage.

>>10825233
Well in space, you're not going to get your bearings from the sky while being in a well lit cockpit. Blocking out the sky on the sim would have trained the astronauts to rely on other means to get their bearings. Plus having the sim be as realistic as possible goes a long way in training.

>>10825232
>Thermal protection
Nonsense.

>>10825242
>They didn't want to risk breaking it
Wow. Just... wow.

Well... this has been fun, but I've got a house to clean up to sell. Wasting time here is even dumber than the 'evidence of a faked landing.

Faker - you are making some interesting life choices. I'm grateful to not have your brain chemistry.

Why does /sci/ debate OP and people like OP? What's the fucking point? Stop wasting your energy and do something productive instead, OP has clearly made his mind long ago and he's just fishing for reasons to support his ideas

>>10825249
Issues with heat has been a major issue in spaceflight for as long as it has existed. In space, the only way to dispate heat is through infrared radiation, which is a very slow process.

How about you back up your claim that thermal issues are "nonsense" instead of just throwing the accusation out there as if it has merit when in actuality it doesn't.

>>10825256
To challenge them, if left unchallenged then it can show that their ideas are valid when they arent.

>>10825239
Well yeah, a prop like that would absolutely be used in faking a moon landing for filming purposes, you have to be nuts to think that it was simulating the sky for the real thing when the prop barely covers a few feet of the sky.

>>10825248
It blocks out barely any of the sky - you're really pulling at straws here.

>>10825272
So it wasnt good enough for training, but it was good enough to fool the Soviets and everyone else for 50 years?

>>10825275
I'm speaking from experience from actual sims.

>>10820835
Such a boring conspiracy theory, why the fuck would they need to fake it?

Instead of faking it they could just go there, it's not even that hard for them there's no need to fake it at all.

Interesting read
http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/

>>10825282
if it's so easy, why have they never gone back.

>>10825272
You make it sound like they were trying to simulate the entire sky. They were practicing a *landing*. They only needed to see down and a ways out.
And to the all-sky point: if you wanted to fake the whole sky for a staged walkabout, you'd need to whole sky, and the side wasn't.
Because it was a landing simulator, not a movie set.

>>10825282
>Such a boring conspiracy theory, why the fuck would they need to fake it?
There is no motivation for faking it. To the conspiratard, the motivation doesn't matter because to them the landings were faked and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. So them coming here asking for people to refute their claims is dishonest of them because they'll just deny any argument agaisnt them. They're on the level of Flat Earthers and Anti-vaxxers.

>>10825280
>So it wasnt good enough for training, but it was good enough to fool the Soviets and everyone else for 50 years?
If pic related had the simulator and man removed, you'd believe it was taken on the moon.

>>10825289
>if it's so easy, why have they never gone back
Because it wasn't a political priority after Apollo. NASA was heavily stripped out after Apollo due to severe budget cuts and were forced to abandon the technology used to reach the moon. NASA of today is nothing like NASA 50 years ago. The strong leadership of Apollo is no longer in NASA today and that results in slow and costly development. Plus there's corruption going on within some of the projects of today (ex. SLS) which wouldn't have been tolerated during Apollo.

>>10820835
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Why do people want to believe shitty conspiracy theories? You know there's actually conspiracies that are way shittier (well i guess you wouldn't know because you're idiots)

>>10825301
>If pic related had the simulator and man removed, you'd believe it was taken on the moon
False. The lander in that image looks nothing like the LEM. How about you bring up technical issies you see with Apollo instead of pointing out weird stuff in photos. Surely if the missions were faked then there should be noticeable flaws somewhere in the days of footage, transcripts of the Apollo crew and MC, technical documents detailing each critial component, etc.

Also, you would need an explanation for why the Soviets didn't expose the hoax. Any moon landing conspiracy theory needs to have an answer for this, and if it doesn't then it can be rejected outright.

>>10825289
>why have they never gone back
turns out that blowing billions to appease a herd of paranoid fucks isn't of very high priority

>>10824690
Somebody who is not USSR founder and took power long after revolution.

>>10825249
nonsense.

>>10825184
rofl you absolute fucking rube

>>10825101
if you actually bothered to look at the rest of the image, you would notice that all of the near-blacks are crushed to green

funny how flattards always have to resort to shitpics with fucked up gamma ramps and jpeg artifacts

>>10825289
>------------
But here’s a slightly different Moon Hoax “conspiracy theory” that seems vastly more plausible to me. It’s well-known that U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies have grown quite concerned with the spread of popular “conspiracy theories” after the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, with the published documents by the CIA and the statements of Cass Sunstein demonstrating this.

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/

Now people who come to believe in one or two unorthodox “conspiracy theories” are obviously much more likely to easily accept others as well. So it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous. In fact, isn’t that *exactly* what Sunstein had personally suggested a decade or so ago? Perhaps it’s more than a pure coincidence that apparently the only book ever published endorsing a Moon Hoax theory came out in 2005, just as the 9/11 Truth movement was starting to really take off. Hasn’t there also been big wave of Flat Earth videos being promoted on YouTube?

Anyway, that’s my own “conspiracy theory” regarding a Moon Hoax.
>---------

>>10825289
It's either impossible to do at all or ridiciously easy for conspiracytards like you and nothing between in case moon landing.

https://youtu.be/Bh_gP5aF3ys

brainlets seething

>>10825340
>like me
this isn't a conspiracy I subscribe to, the only part of it I'm sceptical of is some of the filming for apollo 11
I was legitimately curious why they hadn't gone back
there are enough demonstrably real conspiracies that something like this is a waste of time.

>>10825065
>Why is there mould on the equipment?
As I said the last time you posted this (and failed to respond):
Either you're just willfully ignorant or plain retarded at this point. That's lunar soil, the same lunar soil which has been well documented to stick to things it comes in contact with.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
>To make matters worse, lunar dust suffers from a terrible case of static cling. UV rays drive electrons out of lunar dust by day, while the solar wind bombards it with electrons by night
Judging by the fact that I already explained this to you earlier and you still decided to post it again, we can safely conclude that you are just willfully ignorant.

>>10825396
they went back several times

>>10825396
>I was legitimately curious why they hadn't gone back

The only reason they went in the first was because they were afraid the Soviets would get there first. The states obviously didn't want this. The whole moon landing was because of the space race and the competition between the states and the soviets. Where there not so much of a competition in space I don't believe it would have happened as it's extremely risky. Once the race was "won" public interest waned, and public interest is what gets votes Today there isn't that kind of competition between countries in order to take the same risks that they did in the 60s. The only one that comes anywhere close is USA vs China, but they have already been co-operating with the ISS and other missions. However NASA is planning to cooperate with the ESA and other agencies to go back this decade, barring any changes in president/congress

>>10825413
I think he meant, why hasn't there been a manned moon mission since Apollo. This post explains it well, albeit broadly. >>10825303

>>10825060
>So all the tracks are covered up but the footprints aren't?
think for just a moment about why astronauts walking around might obliterate rover tracks but leave comparatively clear footprints.
(spoiler: it's because the act of walking around continually creates new footprints while obscuring older traces of any type.)
>there's no way they would have kicked up enough dust to cover them up
lunar regolith doesn't work the same way as earth dirt, between the lower gravity, the lack of atmosphere, and the static cling described >>10825409

>>10825193
>I don't think it looks like X, therefore it's not X
this is argument-from-incredulity taken to its most brainlet possible conclusion

>>10825552
To be fair to moon hoaxers, arguments from incredulity is all they have. They can't argue logically for a conspiracy, because the required conspiracy for an Apollo hoax would be so massive that it would utterly fail before the first step would've happened. They can argue using technical details, because then they would have to actually learn such details and run the risk of being convinced that the moon landings happen. All they have left are those arguments from incredulity and they'll just fill in the gaps with a conspiracy theory (which I've seen so much that I think it deserves its own fallacy name and definition).

This is a variant of the flat Earth idiocy.
- Make the absurd claim that everything is a lie.
- Make up an absurd alternative claim.
- Try to justify above statements using bad memes.
- Claim those who point out flaws in bad memes are delusional.
- Hope there are simple-minded folk who believe you and support you.
- With little effort, win fame and fortune from fools, who can easily be parted from their money.

History FACT
Six million Jews! died in the Holocaust!! Sad!

Try to prove it didn't happen, nerds!

>>>/His/

>>10825084

>It looks like mold therefore it must be mold
You, ah, ran through a lot of crayons as a kid, didn'tcha?

>>10825193

Oh, how fortunate of us to have an expert on lunar regolith present! Please, enlighten us as to how many years you've spent working with the stuff!

>>10825681
Crayons are fine cuisine. No. That guy went straight for the leaded paint chips.

>>10820839

>>10825696

>>10825603
have they ever carried out forensic excavations of the camp sites? until that day comes the jews are lying fuckers

>>10825598
see>>10825332
fake conspiracies can be used to discredit legitimate conspiracy facts.

>>10825289
>if it's so easy to fake why haven't they faked going back

>>10820835
You can basically prove that they sent a probe to the moon. You can't prove that they sent people really (how could you!) but it makes so much more sense that they did.

>>10825771
Not really because the Apollo crew gathered samples and performed experiments at a significantly higher quantity than any probe did at the time. Luna 20 gathered 30 grams of samples, while around the same time Apollo 11 gathered 22 kilograms. On top of that, if the manned portions were faked, then the film recordings of the manned portions would have to be faked as well. However, after 50 years, no issue of the films have been found, not even by the Soviets.

I used to believe that the moon landing was a hoax until I looked into it more, It turns out the rumor it's a hoax all originates from neomarxists within the united states. It's why it all appeared after the soviet union fell, along with the rise in Marxism in universities. It's all literal communist propaganda meant to discredit capitalism.

I see many reason to doubt the landing. There's the obvious stuff like blast craters, and buggy tracks absent.
The camera crosses I have no fucking idea why they're something that appears on the film negatives in the first place. Not just in the eyepiece.
>they're reference points
But the camera is custom, and a known unit. This raises more question if they actually went,
Witness marks? What the kind of optical/matterspace? physics abnormality were they making precaution to observe?

We already know time doesn't keep tick. So why would you expect that if you sent a 5X25meter ish object as far as the moon.
That it'd still exist in the origin reality? Has anyone herd from Voyager? It's well past expiration date. Yet the fucker is still capable of sending a coherent signal from the edge of the sun's magnetosphere.With a battery that should be both fried, and well beyond drained.

Is this the Quantum suicide booth in action? Targeting a inorganic blip with constant eyes watching. Willing it o a response signal. As it's not the one we sent out anymore.
It just happens to run the same program.

Hmmm, last non USSR mission past the geostationary orbit. What happened?
I bet the Jews did this.

>>10825830
>There's the obvious stuff like blast craters, and buggy tracks absent.
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/
>The camera crosses I have no fucking idea why they're something that appears on the film negatives in the first place. Not just in the eyepiece.
>>they're reference points
>But the camera is custom, and a known unit. This raises more question if they actually went,
>Witness marks? What the kind of optical/matterspace? physics abnormality were they making precaution to observe?
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_plate

>>10825830
>There's the obvious stuff like blast craters
What about them?

>and buggy tracks absent.
Has been discussed in this thread. >>10824960

>The camera crosses I have no fucking idea why they're something that appears on the film negatives in the first place. Not just in the eyepiece.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4368/what-are-the-small-crosses-on-space-pictures-and-whats-their-purpose
They make exact measurements of stuff in the images more easy, this is especially useful if one were trying to measure the size in something in the photo. This took 10 seconds to Google it.

>We already know time doesn't keep tick...(And accompanying paragraph)
I have no idea what you meant by that. Can you expand on this?

>Hmmm, last non USSR mission past the geostationary orbit. What happened?
Spektr-RG is working perfectly well the last I've heard of it.

>>10825836
>>10825841
you're either talking to a useful idiot or far more likely a literal neo marxist shill. a waste of time either way

>>10825814

>I used to believe this one completely unfounded screeching-nutcase conspiracy theory
>But now I believe a much better completely unfounded screeching-nutcase conspiracy theory!

>>10825852
it's true though, it's an intentional campaign to discredit capitalism and bring socialism to the US.

>>10825852
To be fair, that particular conspiracy theory probably has more basis in reality than the moon hoax. I can definitely see the USSR not helping with clearing the moon landing conspiracy theories as a middle finger to the US.

>>10824356
>http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/
>comic sans
fuck off dude

>>10825699
>>10825696
Easy the shadows on the ground are obviously diverging, while due to the distance of the moon to the sun the angle between the sun rays would be negligble and the shadows would be parallel

>>10824473
>Apollo 13
Because Apollo 13 never landed on the moon due to a failing oxygen tank.
The mission was aborted and the crew used the free return trajectory to return to the earth.

The technology didn't exist to fake it. The high speed cameras of the day were as big as buses with all their support equipment. Miles upon miles of film. That would need seamless splicing in a clean room.

>>10825771
>prove moon contact
You mean the fucking triangulation prism array?
That thing that's self evident to be left by Man, at most Men that stepped on the moon.

Hmmm. That's a good point.
I can concede that if you fire a 2m laser and get a resonance back that's the same as if left with allowance for shift with mirror interaction.
Oh, hang on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_mirror
> Bragg mirror, is a type of mirror composed of multiple thin layers of dielectric material, typically deposited on a substrate of glass or some other optical material. By careful choice of the type and thickness of the dielectric layers, one can design an optical coating with specified reflectivity at different wavelengths of light. Dielectric mirrors are also used to produce ultra-high reflectivity mirrors: values of 99.999% or better over a narrow range of wavelengths can be produced using special techniques. Alternatively, they can be made to reflect a broad spectrum of light, such as the entire visible range or the spectrum of the Ti-sapphire laser.
Well, that begs the question. What is moon bits.
silica SiO2
alumina Al2O3
lime CaO
iron(II) oxideFeO
magnesia MgO
titanium dioxide
sodium oxide Na2O

WHAT!?
The moon is a breeding ground for near perfect mirrors? Mother of fuck.
>yeah but durr, they'd have to chance reflective angle.
Oh, thank god you stopped me there mate. I almost did myself a frightening.
Let us look at the photon return graph from Origins, to near was a moment ago.
Picture related.
>I see neither to the case of fraud
Well that didn't say eaither either. But what if moon was like really hot once. Like hot enough to refine silica, TiO2, and possibly Magnesia in a zero G situation, with 'low' contaminate.
Then why would lasers photon detection need a return plate? If they do absolutely require refraction assistance on the PBS.
Then what makes the Apache Point observatory special?

>>10825814
>It's why it all appeared after the soviet union fell
Some people chose to not believe the Moon landings happened from the beginning. The idea fit well into the sometimes-ironic conspiracy theorizing of the 1970's. It was popular enough for a major Hollywood movie about a faked Mars landing (Capricorn 1) to come out in 1977.

>>10825836
>hurr durr pressure reaction in a vacuum
Dude. That's literally as far from how it works if you didn't think a rocket sucks up nose zone pressure and the flame is the implosion of propulsion.

Take your garden hose, and a bucket. And see how much force you have when the hose is in the air, or lower to sea level under water.

We're currently looking into vector thrusters that aren't conic shaped. But blades. So that adjustment, even staged rockets my be redundant.

Now, back to >durr thrust don't like that in space
I bet you think a rocket needs matter to push against for acceleration.
Surprise cockfag! Rockets and any greater pressure release works more efficiently to power per unit of energy.

>nah nah yu an feggit namefag. The thrust-or wasn't made for moon landing or launch.
>It was for earth reentry.
Wow dude. You're literally going to attempt to rewrite event sequences.
You think NASA wen't "lol!" We'll make it for earth atmosphere. If they die on reentry, that's much worse than failure to exit moon down.

>Réseau plate
Yeah? For stitching pan shots. It has no fucking coherent reason for a known unit, with a expert developer, and master mathematicians.
These crosses would actually slow them down in distortion correction. Because they aren't in the actual image.
They're in the lenses. At best a confirmatory point of "Am I still 20/20 of have I square-eyed".

>>10825974
No one can understand what the fuck you're actually trying to say, please take your meds, take an hour to calm down and try to repost your thoughts in a more coherent manner.

>>10825980
Ignore the perpetual troll. He makes it easy by having that dumb username.

>>10825841
>I have no idea what you meant by that. Can you expand on this?
Well in high end physics. As in beyond sub atomic partials, the quarks and other shit.
It's looking that existence is 'proximity' based. The less you can confirm a things sure existence.
The more likely it's going to change, move, or slap your shit.
We've currently reverted to Are magnets different from light and gravity?
I also suggest looking into the Quantum Suicide Booth thought experiment.
Tl;Dr Scientist has a cupboard connected to a 2 position superposition. It can only ever be one position, then must be the next.
Why the fuck does the scientist come out the Sudoku pantry infinite times?
>Spektr-RG is working perfectly well the last I've heard of it.
Glad to know. But that was more a meme.
Less 'technical' space First World programs by funny named country. They have major issue.
>it's literally rocket science.
Fuck this meme. It's parabolic and procession head fucks. Once you warp to that type of thinking. It's easy.
Tracking and craft comms are what fails.

>>10825980
Yeah.. I wasn't using sarcastic tardation in my language inflection to mock someone at all.
Everyone knows name calling is the patrician flame. So long as you never use evidence to back up the names use.

>>10825995
I remember a time where lurk moar meant nothing to do with an individuals acceptability of ideas/intrests.
It was about users absorbing communication techniques and phrases common.
So we're all on the sameish page, enough we could talk of something unheard of, or things that probably should be illegal for one reason or another.
But present it with that many layers of intent obfuscation, that any response other than one that's calculable result from 'conceptual math' being formed in the text and image relation would be know a guess.
Picture related being shortened to "Pic" was a bannable offense long ago..On /b/.
And it wasn't for post quality.
>kek oldfag won't get off his meme stoop
It's not about preservation of stale memes. But refinement of future ones.
And if they continue tracking, the future's fundamental education quality.

>>10825860

>That old conspiracy? Pfah, of course it's not true.
>This old conspiracy? Now *THIS* is true!
Besides, its not like capitalism needs help discrediting itself.

>>10825868

No, it really doesn't. It's the same "cultural bolshevism" the Nazis made up so they could clear wrongthinkers from positions of academic power and ensure a deep and abiding anti-intellectualism in the laity.

>>10826062
>No, it really doesn't. It's the same "cultural bolshevism" the Nazis made up so they could clear wrongthinkers from positions of academic power and ensure a deep and abiding anti-intellectualism in the laity.
I didn't mean that. I meant something like the USSR not taking the validity of the moon landings seriously and thus indirectly adding fuel to the moon landing conspiracy.

>>10825868
>I can definitely see the USSR not helping with clearing the moon landing conspiracy theories
I see it differently. Going back just before enemy status.
When has Russia/USSR actively done anything other than posture?
America has more friendly ally blood on it's hands deliberately, and not accidental or collateral either.
Tethered Goat..

Come time for Mr Gorbachev to tear down that wall? Russia backed down their tank off to the side to allow
Axis powers over.
All I've see Russia do that's /enemy/ moves. Is playing the role of conservative doubt/don't interfere hat in the UN action.

I might be over rationalizing. But it's all very balanced. Stereotype the players and relate that to international affairs.
It's all Six Thinking Hats balancing. Only rouge statistic is Jews, they seem to be undermining the,
agreed world governance method acting.
Apply The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion from roman. So much more makes seance.
But it's blatantly obvious?
Somethings a miss. And it's not Russia, China, or Best Korea.

>>10825956
There were some Marxist sympathizers in the US especially in liberal universities before the union fell but their numbers greatly increased afterwards. Just as the popularity of moon landing conspiracy theories greatly increased after the union fell.

>>10826195
>He was clamped

>>10826406
I... Can confusion be forced into a quantum state?
I have no clue here. But this can't be a false statement as it's kinda specific.
Anon, map me to your sources of esoteric. I may pay handsomely upon return.
Honest Zimmerman.

>>10825935
>Well, that begs the question. What is moon bits.
You fucking imbecile.
The moon is not made up of oxides; that's just a common way of writing the bulk composition of rocks, as oxide equivalents. Rather, the maria are mostly made of basalt (olivine with plagioclase) and the highlands are made of anorthosite (plagioclase-rich granite, basically).
>The moon is a breeding ground for near perfect mirrors?
Stupid fucking bullshit. The Earth itself has similar composition in its crustal rocks (albeit much more iron-rich) and THEY LOOK LIKE FUCKING ROCKS, NOT FUCKING MIRRORS.
>But what if moon was like really hot once.
Then the surface would be composed of igneous rocks. Which it is. Except that billions of years of meteoroid impacts and exposure to the sun have pulverized the uppermost layer.

Here you see a typical conspiratard making up bullshit that doesn't stand up to even the most basic examination. It's all motivated reasoning, wishful thinking, and special pleading, and it only convinces the most ignorant and delusional people possible.

>>10826984
You're forgetting the zero atmosphere and the collision theory.
Hot molten mass in the fray, free of ozone and spinning like a pizza.
Really good circumstances for reflective shards.
>oxides
Yeah? Titanium dielectric silicon mirrors use oxide Ti.

100% of these "gotcha" questions can reasonably be answered with "look it up yourself"

>>10827249
>he says as he tells people to look it up.
I don't care if it was 'obvious bait'. It's not said only ironically in all cases. That I'm sure.

>>10827283
i have no idea what you're ranting about

yes, moon landing was faked. They used CGI :)

>>10827286
Deferring cop-out. It's basically as good as going la-la-la-la I can't hear you.

>>10827291
what the fuck are you on about

>>10824473
oh shit, he figured it out! DELET THE PICTURE RIGHT NOW! HE WILL PROVIDE THIS TO THE MEDIA!

>>10827293
Just ignore him. He's just a troll trying to be (in)famous.

>>10827303
Wow, you made me shiver. I was reminded of the inflammable cancer years ago.

tripfags should kyoani themselves

http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk/

Okay guys. How do you explain all these photos from different locations but you always have the same backdrop? Did they never make photos from any other direction?

>>10824597
What if we did go to the moon but whoever got there never came back? Armstrong and the gang are actors.

>>10827566
>How do you explain all these photos from different locations but you always have the same backdrop?
The images shown in that link doesn't make any attempt to compare the backgrounds in the images other than claiming that they're the same. The hills in the backgrounds of the photos of various Apollo missions are not identical though, it's clear from the pictures in the website that they are not identical. They just look similar due to the fact that the moons terrain is very smoothed out and thus tend to make similar looking features.

And besides, if the hills were identical and thus the Apollo missions were supposedly faked, then why haven't the Soviets found out about this or any other aspect of the Apollo missions that had to be faked. The Soviets had the ability to tell if the missions were faked and all the motivation to expose the hoax. Yet they backed up that the Apollo missions were legitimate, giving much more credibility that the moon landings did happen. Any moon landing conspiracy theory that doesn't address this can be safely dismissed.

>>10827229
>Hot molten mass in the fray, free of ozone and spinning like a pizza.
>Really good circumstances for reflective shards.
In your made-up world, perhaps. Molten silicate droplets cooling in a vacuum don't produce mirrored shards; they produce dull tektite-like beads. And lunar rocks have a fairly high oxygen fugacity, so it's not like you'd get an oxygen-free environment to get metallic phases at the moon's surface.
And besides, dielectric mirrors get their reflectiveness from their structure (layers of differing refractive indices interleaved at precise thicknesses), not from their composition. It's a structural effect, just like how nacre is pearlescent but regular old aragonite (the same compound without the structure) is glassy.
You're embarrassingly ignorant of fairly basic chemistry and mechanics here.

>Yeah? Titanium dielectric silicon mirrors use oxide Ti.
That's completely irrelevant to everything I said. If you'd read my last comment, you'd see that moon rocks are composed of silicates, NOT oxides.

Here's the question you have no hope of answering, though:
If the moon's surface is so naturally reflective, WHY is it only reflective IN THOSE FIVE SPOTS where humans are supposed to have visited and left mirrors? Why aren't there a bunch more naturally occurring mirrored patches all over the moon? And why are those five spots with retroreflectors found in areas with wildly varying geology (Apollo 11 and Lunokhod 1 on basaltic maria, Apollo 14 in the highlands, Apollo 15 at the border between a basaltic mare and a mountain range, and Lunokhod 2 in a crater)? How come you only get a reflected pulse when aiming at those spots?
Answer me THAT if you can, you delusional moron.