/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10838680
The hundreds of hours of footage and transcripts and voice recordings from the missions

>>10838684
Which is convincing, but not conclusive. I want something where, essentially, there is no other explanation.

>>10838694
That's an unreasonable criteria. That kind of evidence doesn't exist for anything.

>>10838694
The retroreflector at the lunar landing site

>>10838698
Soviet probes left retroreflectors behind too.
>>10838696
Yeah, I get what you're saying, but it isn't true. If there wasn't lunar imagery taken before Apollo 11 the first video would be conclusive evidence. There is tonnes of evidence for the moon landings, none of it proven fake, but also so far as I know nothing that is 100% conclusive. I guess 99% is good enough for most, but some people will always have that niggling "What if..." obsession lying in the back of their minds. So this thread is for that.

>>10838707
>99% is good enough for most, but some people will always have that niggling "What if..." obsession lying in the back of their minds
If you are unironically entertaining doubts in your mind, you do not have 99% confidence.

>>10838707
There is always the possibility that the universe is a simulation. No such absolutism exists.

>>10838727
I just want something I can point to (and for others too) and say: "This, this is foolproof".

The hoaxer explanation requires FAR more logical leaps of faith than the truther explanation, which is why I side towards Apollo being legitimate, but still I haven't seen any virtually as-near-as-can-be 100% conclusive evidence for their truth. Who wouldn't want that?

>>10838728
No but you can get to 99.9... % certainly. For example, if the first video were done without previous lunar imagery being obtained.

I'm hijacking the thread.

Is the discrete fourier transform bijective? Is the discrete time fourier transform bijective?

I'm wondering if there will be a loss when transforming and then inverse transforming it on computers.

>>10838733
>Is the discrete fourier transform bijective?
Yep
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~moreno//AM583/Lectures/Newton2Hensel.html/node3.html

>>10838733
I like it when a guy transforms slowly and painfully into a werewolf with lots of muscle growth and increasing libido, its pretty hot.

>>10838730
The Russians tracked the moon landing and had every reason to debunk it if they could have but didn't.

There's your certainty.

someone tell Elon to send a probe to the moon to explore the original landing site

I've found something that's pretty conclusive and it comes from the later Apollo missions: moon dust.

From a reddit user:

"Watch some moon buggy footage and observe the behaviour of the large volumes of fine dust thrown up by the wheels. Instead of floating around like clouds, as they would do in an atmosphere, they settle within seconds, leaving the 'air' perfectly clear.

Only makes sense if filmed in a low gravity vacuum."

EliLP5uEYAU

>>10838746
That's not very direct evidence even if it is logical. The whole point of this isn't to prove something, it's to eliminate doubt to even the most suspicious. And to do that requires a kind of "See it yourself" attitude.

>>10838750
The landing sites have been photographed in enough detail already by the LRO. But they could have been unmanned, to play Devil's advocate.

>>10838680
>The Soviets had the ability to tell if the Apollo missions were faked.
>If the Soviets had found out that said missions were faked, then they would have exposed it to the whole world to humiliate the US
>Point directly above didn't happen
>Ergo, the Apollo missions really did happen

Sure, one could postulate that the Soviets and the Americans were secretly working together, but then that brings into question every action during the Cold War. Namely that the Cold War has shown that the USA and USSR were not working together in the way required for a moon hoax to happen. The only way that particular theory could work is if every interaction between these two powers were faked too. However, unless evidence for such fakery were found(not only that but evidence that such a conspiracy even exists, how it was formed, and how it remained a secret), then the theory that the Soviets and Americans were working together in Apollo can be safely dismissed for being too complex compared the idea that the moon landings did happen.

Any moon landing conspiracy theory that does not address the Soviets can be dismissed outright.

I'm just going to dump this here.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>>10838756
yeah I just mean, to shut people up for good, have a probe with a video camera running all the way from launch to the landing site

>>10838769
I agree wholly, but again, this isn't about logically proving something (well, not in its essence even if that is a feature). It's about removing doubt. And by nature, we value empirical evidence better than rational evidence. The best two pieces I've come up with are that the LEM descent footage matches perfectly with recent imagery - this would hold if not for lunar imagery being taken before Apollo 11 however it may be the case that this lunar imagery wasn't nearly detailed enough to explain how consistent the descent footage is. The other piece is that the physics of moon dust, especially when kicked up by the lunar rover, seems completely impossible to fake without having a huge near-vacuum movie set which is ludicrous.

>>10838792
You can't *logically* prove anything that happened in history, retard. Don't you realize this? No historical event meets your absurd criteria.

>>10838786
I suppose that the fact that all the piles of evidence is consistent and not fake, to such a flawless degree, is also conclusive evidence even if very few individual pieces of evidence are conclusive. You'd expect them to slip up somewhere, but that isn't the case

>>10838787
That won't stop the conspiracy theorists. They'll claim that the prope is on the moon but the Apollo equipment is fake, or theyll claim that the prope is fake and its recording a soundstage (or CGI). Nothing can convince moon hoaxers that the moon landings happened. In fact, trying to debunk them will just convince them more that the landings were faked.

There are mountains of public documents about the design of the equipment used in Apollo, and yet no technical flaw has been found. There are days of footage of the Apollo missions, yet there are no bloopers or flubbed dialog. There are studies done on what can be done on a manned lunar mission, and they're all consistent with whats expected of a moon mission. There are thousands of people who have worked in Apollo, and none of them have spilled the beans even on their deathbed. It's been over 50 years and while stuff like Watergate and NSA have been exposed, nothing about a supposed Apollo hoax has been found.

The manned moon landings happened.

>>10838805
No but you can get to a ridiculous level of certainty. Not all pieces of evidence are equal, some give us a lot more information than others. For example, evidence based on consistency to lunar gravity COULD be faked relatively easily. That doesn't mean it was, by the way, but the mere possibility gives conspiracy theorists doubt. Simulating the physics of moon dust is a different ball game however, the possibility of doing so is so incredibly low that unlike the evidence of lunar gravity this can be called "effectively conclusive".

Or to put it another way. If for whatever reason America wanted to, even if this is the less likely option, they could have faked the lunar gravity part of the moon landings. They could not have faked the moon dust part. If someone is still skeptical it means they have failed to register meaning so they're basically dead meat.

So basically, lunar dust is the only conclusive empirical proof of the moon landings. Which is enough (especially considering all the other evidence that is wholly consistent and as a whole is itself conclusive evidence as you'd expect there to be a mess-up somewhere, not to mention Occam's razor, the Soviet incentive to disprove the landings etc.)!

>>10838840
Don't forget about the moon rocks. Not only have they been verified by non-NASA sources, but the amount that was brought back was much larger than the sample return probes could do at the time.

>>10838694
There no such thing as proof for anything with can't be disputed by anyone.

You have to ask yourself if it's reasonable all that footage was falsified, and no one made even the smallest mistake and no one involved ever said what happened.

>>10838680
Note the manoeuvre at 29 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnBtYpMgFZI

Such a manoeuvre is practically impossible in space. What is actually being filmed is a mounted camera being traversed above a fake lunar surface using the crane contraption in pic related.

This crane contraption was set up at the Langley Research Center.

>>10838976
>spacecraft can't rotate on their axis with RCS

based retard my friend, here's your (you).

>>10838997
Did you actually watch what it did you buffoon? Based on the speed before, during and after the rotation, it is clear that it was done by the crane simulator.

>>10838976
>Such a manoeuvre is practically impossible in space
No. It is possible. Maneuvering thrusters were used to orient the Apollo spacecraft. Nothing about using puffs of gas to roll a spacecraft is impossible in space.

>What is actually being filmed is a mounted camera being traversed above a fake lunar surface using the crane contraption in pic related.
Prove it.

>This crane contraption was set up at the Langley Research Center
Which was used for training.

Interesting how you have failed to explain why the Soviets didnt blow the whole hoax open.

>>10839019
>Based on the speed before, during and after the rotation, it is clear that it was done by the crane simulator
How? And prove that it was done on a simulator.

>>10839026
>No. It is possible. Maneuvering thrusters were used to orient the Apollo spacecraft.
Don't be ridiculous, it's far too smooth. It flies in one direction, spins 180 and continues in the same direction without going off course once. What computing power was used to do such a feat?
>Prove it.
Pic related is where they filmed the supposed orbit above the moon. Do you seriously think such a shitty "simulator" consisting of ropes and pulleys would be an adequate simulation of space + moon? That's laughable. It was made purely for faking the moon landings, not for simulating the real thing.
>Interesting how you have failed to explain why the Soviets didnt blow the whole hoax open.
People always have to fall back on the Soviets not saying anything as if that proves they actually happened. Do you allow for the possibility that they had a reason not to say anything? Perhaps the "cold war" wasn't all it seemed? If the moon landings were faked, then why can't the "war" also be fake?

>>10839065
holy SHIT you are fucking DUMB. The direction of the spacecraft wouldn't be affected by a translation or rotation maneuver. It is not moving along at thrust you fucking MORON holy shit why am I even replying.

>>10839065
>Don't be ridiculous, it's far too smooth. It flies in one direction, spins 180 and continues in the same direction without going off course once.
A simple rotation wouldn't significantly alter course. RCS thrusters have very low thrust to facilitate smooth transition.

>Pic related is where they filmed the supposed orbit above the moon
Prove it.

>Do you seriously think such a shitty "simulator" consisting of ropes and pulleys would be an adequate simulation of space + moon?
It seems to work well enough for NASA.

>It was made purely for faking the moon landings, not for simulating the real thing.
Prove it.

>People always have to fall back on the Soviets not saying anything as if that proves they actually happened
Because its the single biggest issue every Apollo hoax theory has.

>Do you allow for the possibility that they had a reason not to say anything?
Why? The Soviets started the Space Race to show communist superiority to America. The Americans started the manned race to the moon to show capitalist superiority to the Soviets. Not exposing a hoax being done by your enemy to humiliate you is stupid.

>Perhaps the "cold war" wasn't all it seemed?
Prove it. Stop with the assertions and actually provide evidence.

> If the moon landings were faked, then why can't the "war" also be fake?
That would require the landings to be fake, but 50 years and this very thread has shown otherwise. Also, if the Cold War was fake, then prove it and provide evidence. Stop making assertions.

>>10839044
>How? And prove that it was done on a simulator.
The crane simulator at Langley was capable of moving the mock lunar lander (AKA mounted camera) in all directions and perfectly capable of doing the manoeuvre in the video through the use of ropes and pulleys. You can see that one side of the "lander" is being pulled as it rotates, which slows the entire camera down, until it rotates 180 and continues at the same speed. RC thrusters would not look like that.

>>10839076
Yes it would brainlet, due to the uneven distribution of mass of the craft.

>this hodge podge of paper Mache, black paper, curtain rods and gold foil made it to the moon
>Oh wait your serious. Let me laugh even harder hahahahahaha

>>10839093
>You can see that one side of the "lander" is being pulled as it rotates
I don't see this.

>which slows the entire camera down,
You mean the frame rate? I don't see that either.

>until it rotates 180 and continues at the same speed
Because rotating the lander wouldn't affect its speed(Unless you meant the camera then I still don't see a shift in frame rate).

On top of that there's more footage not shown in the YouTube video of the lander coming down to the moon from a height that the Langley crane couldn't reach(Look up apolloinrealltime). You haven't provided good evidence that the landing was faked.

>>10839109
Thats a non-structural cover. You still haven't explained why the Soviets didn't expose the whole thing.

>>10839088
>A simple rotation wouldn't significantly alter course. RCS thrusters have very low thrust to facilitate smooth transition.
What controlled the RCS thrusters?
>Prove it.
The ridiculous manoeuvre that was filmed plus the short amount of time the surface of the "moon" was filmed, considering there was a limited amount to film. They also used a plaster of Paris model to fake it, pic related. That's why Jim Lovell described the moon like the following: "The moon is essentially gray, no color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish beach sand."
They like giving out little clues like that.
>It seems to work well enough for NASA.
As if that's supposed to mean anything...
>Because its the single biggest issue every Apollo hoax theory has.
If that is the single biggest issue then that means those who believe the moon landings are not convinced by the footage and technology - you are relying on the fact a country didn't say it was fake. You are trusting a Soviet government's silence who supposedly couldn't be trusted in the first place. Pretty weak don't you think?
>Why? The Soviets started the Space Race to show communist superiority to America. The Americans started the manned race to the moon to show capitalist superiority to the Soviets. Not exposing a hoax being done by your enemy to humiliate you is stupid.
Do you think that sounds like real life? Or rather something out of a comic book? Could you post the image of the masonic flag Buzz supposedly took to the moon, and then describe what the Russian coat of arms looks like?
>That would require the landings to be fake, but 50 years and this very thread has shown otherwise. Also, if the Cold War was fake, then prove it and provide evidence. Stop making assertions.
Prove the cold war was real rather than orchestrated - calling it real is also an assertion.

Moonrocks seem to be the best proof. Don't know if that could be fabricated though. That would be 382 kg (842 lb) of lunar rocks and regolith. Total mass of lunar meteorites found on earth is 190 kilograms (420 lb).
The only other source for moon rocks to this date were the Soviet Luna probes which only returned 0.3kg.

>>10839116
Pic

>>10839113
It's a prop made by Stanley Kubrick and a shitty one at that

>>10839117
"Moon rocks" can be found in Antarctica.

>>10838976
Your argument is incorrect or at least you have provided no properly set-out evidence for it.

Now, explain how they got the moon dust to behave like that if it was done on a set. It is literally impossible to do.

>>10839116
>What controlled the RCS thrusters?
Either a computer or one of the two astronauts on board.

>They also used a plaster of Paris model to fake it, pic related.
Prove that it was used to fake the moon landing rather than for practice or study.

>They like giving out little clues like that.
So a conspiracy so airtight that it has endured for 50 years, while stuff like Watergate and MKUltra get exposed, likes to leak out information? That's ridiculous.

>If that is the single biggest issue then that means those who believe the moon landings are not convinced by the footage and technology
No. I didn't say that. I'm convinced of the overwhelming evidence for the Apollo moon landings. However, a conspiracy theorist can just deny all of that and claim that it was all perfectly faked while providing no evidence at all, but can't ignore that the Soviets were keeping a close eye on Apollo and could tell if a hoax was happening. No conspiracy theory can logic it's way out of this issue without either assuming that the Soviets were stupid or assuming a conspiracy so large that it would've collapsed under its own wieght.

>You are trusting a Soviet government's silence
No. The Soviets confirmed the landings happened.

>who supposedly couldn't be trusted in the first place
I never said that.

>Do you think that sounds like real life? Or rather something out of a comic book?
Why does that matter? Comic books about real life exist.

>Prove the cold war was real rather than orchestrated
No. You're the one who postulated that it was fake YOU prove it.

>>10839131
>explain how they got the moon dust to behave like that
What dust? You'd only need to use something denser like dry sand to get the same effect.

It doesn't matter if the moon missions were fake or real. In the end, their relevance for manned space travel to the moon today was as big as the importance of the alledged discovery of America by Vikings, Chinese or Phoenicians has been for the economies of Europe, Asia or America before Columbus got there.

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

>>10839150
>It doesn't matter if the moon missions were fake or real.

>>10839179
>mountains on the earth do not cast shadows like that
What...? Yes they do

>>10839206
I'm pretty sure he's a troll at this point. Just report him and move on.

>>10839206
Prove it.

>>10839179
>Many miles long - mountains on the earth do not cast shadows like that.
Yes they do. If something obstructs sunlight, there is a shadow. Keep in mind that a view like this would happen close to sunrise or sunset, when a high mountain can obstruct sunlight just as well on Earth. The shadows on the image appear sharp because they are far away and there is no atmosphere to refract the light into a a diffuse shadow.

>>10838680
>All evidence against the Apollo landings
Not even close
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

>>10838707
>Soviet probes left retroreflectors behind too.
Many years after the Apollo missions. The retroreflectors were there before the Soviet ones

>>10839252
>inb4 all the world's countries are in on the Jewish/Irish/Lizard/Alien/Jeff conspiracy

>>10839251
Show such a shadow on earth then please.

Also, pic related. Is it a plaster of Paris model, or the actual moon? If you believe it's the actual moon, how would you rate yourself in terms of gullibility from 1 - 10? (10 being completely gullible).

>>10839288
>Show such a shadow on earth then please.
Not him but here. The shadow clearly extends to the horizon which makes it pretty long. And so what if no such shadow exists on Earth? How does that apply to the moon?

>>10839252
Almost everything in the paragraph
>Independent evidence
is pretty much rubbish.

>It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings and the lunar Rover, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified.[4]
lel really?

>A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.[9][10] According to the group, in December 1972 a member "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".[11]
oh wow

The only interesting parts are the intercepted radio transmissions from the Apollo spacecraft, which at least prove that those transmissions were coming from space.

>>10839302
>Almost everything in the paragraph
>>Independent evidence
>is pretty much rubbish.
How come?

The other two bits you picked out you've dismissed nonchalantly which is somewhat fair, it's not the hardest evidence. That still leaves the entire rest of the page however. What about the Moon rocks for example?

>>10839302
>evidence against my claims are rubbish because I say so

>>10839300
Got a larger photo?
>And so what if no such shadow exists on Earth? How does that apply to the moon?
The light source is essentially the same for the both the moon and earth - therefore comparable shadows should be observed. The shadows in that "moon" picture is clearly using a plaster of Paris model of the moon with a local light source. Hence why the picture is so cropped too, can't give away too much.

>>10839311
Moon rocks are in the paragraph
>Independent research consistent with NASA claims
I think moon rocks seem pretty credible, although the bit written there sounds amateurish and proves very little.
>These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica.
That's just circular reasoning.
>The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old.
>A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was dated to be 4.417 billion years old,
That's just an assumption based on a theory of how the moon formed and rocks can't be dated if they cannot be compared to geological formations on Earth.

>>10839120
>shitty prop

>technical papers and plans have been publicly available for decades and no engineer or scientist has found any design or technical flaw

If it's a prop it's a prop that would actually work for it's intended purpose.

>>10839341
Lemme predict what the conspiratard will say.

"The documents are all fake! Can you prove that the documents are real? The fact that no one has found flaws in these highly technical papers despite them being open to the public for 50 years means nothing against my wild and unsupported claims because I say so!"

>>10839337
>rocks can't be dated if they cannot be compared to geological formations on Earth.
Oh I didn't realise you were an expert in geology, would you mind explaining why this is?

Pic related is a photo allegedly taken of the moon from the Apollo 17 mission.

Photo reference code: AS17-155-23701

Is this a real photo of the moon, or a photo of a plaster of Paris model of the moon?

I think the moon landing believers know what the likely answer is. Are they brave enough to post their honest opinion? There's no way they can look at this photo without embarrassment.

>>10839346
>>10839341
Can you provide the most convincing technical plan?

>>10839311
>How come?

>SELENE photographs
This is basically just a 3d reconstruction of the terrain based on photos of the probe (resolution 10m, btw not enough for any remains of the moon missions). Which only proves that the terrain on the Apollo photos isn't complete fantasy.
>Chandrayaan-1
It claims that there is lighter soil at the Apollo 15 site. Still the resolution isn't good enough and color variations can be found anywhere.

>Apollo missions tracked by independent parties
Allegedly tracked "to the moon and back". Most of the examples involved visual tracking or "sightings" of the spacecraft in orbit and the rocket during launch. But you couldn't see the spacecraft during translunar flight. So that only certainly proves an orbital presence for the Apollo mission.
Radio tracking seems more credible.

>>10839356
>Is this a real photo of the moon, or a photo of a plaster of Paris model of the moon?
It seems legitimate to me. However, even if every single picture that was taken by the Apollo missions that still doesn't invalidate the other evidence for Apollo. Such as the thousands of people who have worked on the project and none have spilled the beans when we should expect dozens by now. Such as the large amount of scientific data brought back that has been cross confirmed. Such as the equipment that has been built for a manned lunar mission that works. Such as the Soviets not busting the conspiracy open. And much more.

>I think the moon landing believers know what the likely answer is. Are they brave enough to post their honest opinion?
Attempting a srawman? Really? How about you actually bring up evidence rather than point at images while saying "it look wierd!!1"

>>10839356
>here's no way they can look at this photo without embarrassment.
How can you tell it's faked, in detail? Is it some of the pixels?

>>10839373
Its photoshopped. He can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in his time.

>>10839365
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

Literally 10s in google

>>10839347
Rocks are mostly dated via stratigraphy, which means you compare them to rocks in known formations on Earth's surface. Hopefully we know how deep it was originally, how the formation was created and how it was moved back to the surface. Based on conjecture (accepted models) for the time frames involved the rocks are dated. Or you use radiometric dating which involves examination of the isotopes in the rock. This works well on Earth, where you can say for sure that certain geologic formation processes ensure that decaying isotopes are not replenished after the rock formed. Say, if salt from sea water or atmospheric gasses are trapped in volcanic rocks. But cosmic rays and meteorites on the moon make this useless.

>>10839371
>It seems legitimate to me.
How does it feel lying to yourself?
>However, even if every single picture that was taken by the Apollo missions that still doesn't invalidate the other evidence for Apollo
If the photos are fake despite being presented to the public by NASA as being real, then it puts all so-called evidence also presented to the public as being real into serious doubt. Moon landing believers rely on the belief that NASA (and the Soviets) are completely trust-worthy, any deviation from that and your whole argument falls apart.
>Such as the thousands of people who have worked on the project and none have spilled the beans when we should expect dozens by now
Thousands of people doing what exactly? Do you understand how compartmentalisation works? Also, have you read Thomas Baron's report on how incompetent everything was at NASA? Thomas wrote two reports about NASA, he died shortly after writing the second one - coincidence of course.
>the large amount of scientific data brought back that has been cross confirmed
Like what? And cross confirmed by who?
>Such as the equipment that has been built for a manned lunar mission that works
Where is that equipment now? Hasn't it been destroyed? Deliberately? Why?
>Such as the Soviets not busting the conspiracy open
Good ol' Soviets. They could have lied and said it was fake, but they remained respectful in defeat. You can trust the Soviets to play fair.
>Attempting a srawman? Really? How about you actually bring up evidence rather than point at images while saying "it look wierd!!1"
I didn't say it looks weird, you did, therefore you think it looks weird. It doesn't look weird when you see it as a plaster of Paris model - which is what it is. I refuse to believe you think otherwise, you are not 5 years old, do yourself a favour and snap out of this fantasy.

>>10839408
>Thomas Baron
Doubting that NASA is taking safety seriously != Exposing a complex conspiracy to fake the manned moon landing for some reason

>>10839356
>Is this a real photo of the moon, or a photo of a plaster of Paris model of the moon?
>I think the moon landing believers know what the likely answer is. Are they brave enough to post their honest opinion?

My honest opinion:
The people documenting the Apollo program did NOT look at each photo and ask "is there some way that someone can (without factual back-up) imagine that this looks like something other than what it is?

Should they have reviewed each document; and not release any document that they thought could be imagined to look like something it isn't?

>>10839371
I personally hope that the moon landings were real, but "thousands of people who have worked on the project" don't prove anything as this number contains every worker that made a screw for the spacecraft. You can still build a functional rocket and spaceship that can go to orbit and back and hoax the moon flight. Mission control had separate teams for the launch and the trans-lunar flight. People involved in the moon mission team where actual moon astronauts for later missions. Also, it's not like all NASA technicians are always collecting their information directly. Most of them are just given the information and they wouldn't know if it's data from a simulation/script or data that has just been just meassured directly.

I dont get it. Why even waste your time "debunking hoaxers"? Most of the time they have some form of mental illness, or are simply so retarded that any rational discussion is pointless. Any concrete evidence you present would be dismissed as fake.

If, somehow, you were to actually pin one of these mouth breathing idiots down, stick them in a time machine, go back to 1969, stick him in the actual fucking spacecraft and send him to the moon, then bring him back, guess what? Next week he would be back at it again, saying the same old shit, saying it was a hoax.

>>10839432
Some do change their minds. Even though it never seems like it. And it's important to have even one less person who thinks the moon landings were faked.

>>10839373
The "craters" clearly being carved by the same artist, he got lazy and carved the same kind of crater multiple times next to each other. The craters are also huge in scale, tiny craters were skipped as again he is lazy.

The camera also has no trouble capturing the light reflecting off the atmosphere-less moon, despite the moon being bright enough to hurt one's eyes if you stare at it long enough from the earth, which has an atmosphere.

The moon looks pretty dull in fact, which is absurd.

>the tech has been proven to be capable of reaching the destination and performing its purpose
>no technical flaws or engineering flaws

>but instead of using this tech we know for a fact would work we faked the moon landings instead of, you know, actually just going there

Moon landing conspiritards make some incredible leaps of logic

>>10839432
You should try to debunk these moon hoaxers as they pop up to at the very least show that their ideas are flawed to outside observers. But a rule is that you should really only reply twice unless they show that they're actually being rational rather than the nutjobs that they are.

As to why people keep replying to them. Because some of us keep thinking that moon hoaxers can be rational and all they need is one good piece of evidence to reconsider their claims rather than being thickheaded lunatics who argue from dishonest positions. Oops.

>>10839441
>The camera also has no trouble capturing the light reflecting off the atmosphere-less moon, despite the moon being bright enough to hurt one's eyes if you stare at it long enough from the earth, which has an atmosphere.

What is exposure settings? The surface of the moon is about as bright as a gray gravel car park in the middle of clear sunny day. You don't get blinded on a sunny day because your eyes adjust the amount of light the allow in, just like any decent camera.

>>10839403
>Rocks are mostly dated via stratigraphy
Well I've just had a look at a short summary of the original bit and they didn't use that method they used radioactive zircon testing, seems to make your rebuttal a bit moot

>>10839384
These are just handbooks for the control panels of the Apollo craft - they do nothing to show how the entire Apollo craft was made. That's forgetting all the other technology that allowed for things like broadcasting TV and sound from the moon using '69 batteries.

>>10839432
I'm an avid sports fan and mental gymnastics is great for spectators! The human brain really is great at convincing itself it can't possibly be wrong, and some people are especially good at it

>>10839413
He didn't just report on safety, he also said that the workers didn't know what they were doing, and were constantly moved from task to task without ever completing their previous one.

Workers were assigned tasks that they had no experience in, and all in all it was a complete clusterfuck.

Why did no NASA worker expose this? We're lead to believe that the moon landings took the hard work of many competent people, why do we never hear about the complete mess it actually was? Do you think it's just a coincidence Thomas Baron died in a freak accident?

>>10839464
>That's forgetting all the other technology that allowed for things like broadcasting TV and sound from the moon using '69 batteries.
are you doubting that such a thing was possible?

>>10839470
>why do we never hear about the complete mess it actually was?
Probably because people would rather talk about this

>>10839470
Large projects like Apollo often are cluster fucks. Do you think that $1,000,000,000,000 budget was spent waste free?

>>10839425
Well back then the access to the moon photos was much more limited - the best ones were printed in books and other paper media. You had to contact NASA directly if you wanted more.

In the advent of the internet, NASA had no excuse not to publish all the photos they had of the missions. That meant the shitty ones also got lumped in, however it didn't matter because people want to believe it was real, so no matter how ridiculous the photos/footage is, people will defend it.

>>10839441
>he got lazy and carved the same kind of crater multiple times next to each other
You're surprised that all the craters that formed the exact same way look the same?

>>10838811
This

My favorite "flaw" ive heard so far is "theres just no way. To get something like this right the first time is just impossible!". Still wouldn't shut up after I explained a brief history of what the '11' meant after 'Apollo'...

>>10839470
What are you even implying? They killed Baron because he was reporting that a super large government project was being run wastefully? And they chose to kill him *after* he published two reports? I'm not following your internal logic.

Hoaxers should provide their claimed evidence and debunking more clearly if they want to be taken more seriously.

>>10839443
>the tech has been proven to be capable of reaching the destination and performing its purpose
Prove it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258468670_Tracking_Lunar_Dust_-_Analysis_of_Apollo_Footage

>>10839492
if it were true would there actually be evidence you would be willing to accept? Or would you dismiss everything as "faked"?

>>10839454
>What is exposure settings?
Aren't exposure settings designed for light on earth, in which an atmosphere is involved?

Yet the astronauts, with their clunky gloves and camera placed upon their chest, nailed the exposure settings constantly in a completely alien environment? The lack of blur is also remarkable.
>The surface of the moon is about as bright as a gray gravel car park in the middle of clear sunny day
So if the moon was made entirely of grey gravel, would it be the same brightness? Remember, there is moon light, which is strong enough to penetrate (if you believe light travels) the earth's atmosphere which lights up clouds and creates shadows just as the sun does.

>>10839471
Considering the electrical power required to transmit TV and audio across a few hundred miles on earth, yes. Not forgetting the size of such transmission towers either.

>>10839479
That's a little figurine model set.

>>10839510
>Aren't exposure settings designed for light on earth
They apply to all aperture's/lenses. It's basic optics

>So if the moon was made entirely of grey gravel, would it be the same brightness? Remember, there is moon light, which is strong enough to penetrate (if you believe light travels) the earth's atmosphere which lights up clouds and creates shadows just as the sun does.
Just spend 2 minutes googling the light intensity of the Sun at 1AU and the Moon's albedo and work out for yourself. Light doesn't have to be that strong to penetrate the almost totally transparent atmosphere

Gather money, send your own cubesat to measure all the various cosmic energy fields around the earth, learn until you can convince yourself it's technically possible and with enough money, you yourself could do it.

>>10839510
>Aren't exposure settings designed for light on earth, in which an atmosphere is involved?
no. They work in an extremely wide range of environments. Super bright photo studios for one. The moon would be no challenge at all.

>>10839483
>Large projects like Apollo often are cluster fucks.
That doesn't do your side any good. Your argument is that if the moon landings were fake, it would have been exposed by the thousands of workers on the project, yet the workers never said a word about it being a cluster fuck.

The only person who did got killed in a freak accident - seems like a warning to anyone else who decides to expose them. The astronaut who didn't believe the Apollo craft could get to the moon and hung a lemon in it also got killed - another warning do you think?

>>10838752
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lERB9BPzC4

>>10839521
>Considering the electrical power required to transmit TV and audio across a few hundred miles on earth
We still get signals from fucking Voyager 2. You don't need to send a powerful signal from the moon when you have a huge ass dish as a receiver.

pic very related.

>>10839543
>yet the workers never said a word about it being a cluster fuck
Well they clearly did to the guy who asked when he was making a report about it

>>10839543
>yet the workers never said a word about it being a cluster fuck.
Why didn't they? Because they were threatened to keep quite? Then why did they talk to the guy who made the report? Why did Baron make the report, did they not threaten him too?

Why did they let him make 2 reports before killing him?

>>10839485
>all the craters that formed the exact same way
You mean by the human hand? What use does pic related have for the Apollo mission?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268

>>10839579
>What use does pic related have for the Apollo mission?
What use did they have for a model of the place they were going to? That's your question?

>>10839488
They killed him as a warning to anyone else who decided to be brave and expose the fraudulent project. Unless you actually believe he died due to his car getting struck by a train, killing his wife and stepdaughter. A "woman" witnessed it apparently, and it was totally and accident...

>>10839507
I'd like to see a space craft flying in a large vacuum chamber on earth. That would legitimise the technology a bit more.

>>10839581
NO hoaxer can explain this. Just try it, it's futile. This level of attention to detail is only present in reality itself, a model in 1969 could not achieve this given the LRO's photos are legitimate.

>>10839591
But the warning was you could publish an entire report on how shitty everything was and not get killed.

He also died of a freak accident officially, so if it was a secret killing then it can't be a warning because no one knew he didn't really die normally.

It's such a bizarre theory.

People get hit by trains all the fucking time.

>>10839594
>That would legitimise the technology a bit more.
It's literally only brainlets who think that rockets don't work in vacuums. Children who've studied the slightest bit of Newton have a better understanding of physics than those retards

>>10839591
That wouldn't stop people from leaking the information, it would only encourage it. People would just do it anonymously, wait until they're near to death, or just sacrifice themselves. There were more than enough people working on the project that someone would fall into one of those categories.

>>10838680
There's thousands of photos, hours of videos, moon rocks from the moon, and tons of physical evidence left on the moon itself that's been confirmed by other countries.

Conspiracy theorists find something that looks kinda funny out of the thousands of pieces of evidence and uses that funny looking thing to claim we never went there.

Also, why didn't you just post the youtube videos instead of having retarded codes?

>>10839597
Still waiting for a hoaxer to explain this level of detail, by the way.

>>10839594
lol.. what? How do you think rockets work? You can demonstrate a rocket works in a tiny vacuum chamber if you want.

Rockets work by firing stuff out the back really fast. in response this means the main body of the rocket must move the opposite direction. It's harder for a rocket to work in the atmosphere because air resistance is always trying to stop the rocket.

>>10839594
If you stand perfectly still on a skateboard and throw a bowling bowl in one direction, you'll move the other direction. That has nothing to do with air, it's called Newton's Third Law.

>>10839529
>They apply to all aperture's/lenses. It's basic optics
So how did they know what the correct exposure setting was to photograph the moon at various distances and angles? They could not have practised this on earth.
>>10839529
>Light doesn't have to be that strong to penetrate the almost totally transparent atmosphere
It's pretty strong when it's supposedly reflecting off the moon, going through the earth's atmosphere and creating shadows upon the earth's surface. If you stare at the moon long enough, it will imprint itself into your eyes when you blink, that is strong. If you're on the surface of the moon, that is going to be so much more intense you wouldn't be able to even look at the surface.

>>10839611
OP here, I'm an idiot basically and forgot you could post links.

>>10839542
Have you seen how bright the moon is from earth? Now imagine being on the surface, it would be too bright to see.

>>10839550
>We still get signals from fucking Voyager 2
Who is "we"? The same organisation that faked the moon landings? Or you do personally?

Regardless, "signals" prove nothing.

>>10839639
>Have you seen how bright the moon is from earth?
It's lit by the same sun that the earth is. The moon is actually often dimmer than the earth because the moon is actually quite grey, It just looks bright in the sky because there's nothing brighter to compare it to at night.

But look at how dark it is when compared to the earth when you take a photo of both..

>>10839645
Explain the video here:
>>10839581

>>10839629
>So how did they know what the correct exposure setting was to photograph the moon at various distances and angles?
All that matters is the brightness and it's not hard to calculate how bright it would be on the Moon.

>>10839639
The Moon's albedo is 0.12, or about the same as tarmac. So it would be as bright as a sunny day at a race track

>>10839566
>>10839577
The workers are allowed to talk to those within the organisation such as Thomas, but sign NDAs that forbids them to talk publicly about the project unless otherwise authorised to do so.

The killing of Thomas was done to show NASA weren't fucking around, they will kill you and your family if you say anything.

>Why did they let him make 2 reports before killing him?
Just to show you can make multiple reports exposing them and they can still kill you and get away with it.

>>10839585
Yes, such a tiny model.

>>10839671
>kill someone as a warning to others people not to do what he did
>make it look like he died by accident
You have to pick one

>>10839676
By tiny you mean 10 times the diameter of a standard globe?

>>10839597
Well of course NASA would use the take off footage as the template to fake the LRO pictures, all it takes is to trace over the tracks etc.

There's a reason the take off footage doesn't last very long, the crane set up at Langley is limited in its space. The take off looks utterly ridiculous because it was pulled up and moved away by the crane.

>>10839706
>The take off looks utterly ridiculous
Looks exactly as you'd expect if it were real

>>10839600
>People get hit by trains all the fucking time.
In their car? What did they do, park on the railway line and forget to get out of the car?

The only way they could have got hit by a train in their car is by being on the track without enough time to get out. Was a health and safety inspector driving dangerously with family in the car to try and beat an oncoming train? Give me a break. There's no proof of this "accident", so tell me how it's official.

>>10839608
Yeah that's great - did you know science prides itself on physical demonstrations of physical claims?

If a spacecraft can fly in a vacuum, then show footage of this occurring on earth. It makes total sense for such craft to be tested in giant vacuum chambers.

>>10839609
Remember, Baron's family was also killed. People would be willing to sacrifice themselves, but not their family.

>>10839706
Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?

>>10839725
There's nothing to demonstrate but Newton's laws, rocket's follow in the most basic way from those 400 year old principles

>>10839725
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic

>>10839625
>You can demonstrate a rocket works in a tiny vacuum chamber if you want.
Doesn't count because the gas presses off the walls of the container.
>Rockets work by firing stuff out the back really fast. in response this means the main body of the rocket must move the opposite direction.
I've heard these words before, they're great, but can you actually demonstrate a rocket powered craft flying in a large vacuum chamber?
>It's harder for a rocket to work in the atmosphere because air resistance is always trying to stop the rocket.
The resistance allows for the gas coming out of the rocket to create a lot of pressure which then lifts the rocket.

>>10839725
If you don’t believe images you see of rockets working in space, why would you believe a video of a rocket working in a vacuum chamber?

>>10839737
>rocket powered craft flying in a large vacuum chamber?
Large vaccum chaimbers don't exist.

>>10839628
I'm afraid that's a totally different scenario. A rocket in a vacuum isn't pressing upon a skateboard which is pressing upon the ground while throwing an external object away.

Footage of a rocket in a large vacuum, flying around please.

>>10839743
Do you not know how to draw a free body diagram?

>>10839737
>The resistance allows for the gas coming out of the rocket to create a lot of pressure which then lifts the rocket.
True, until the rocket starts to move, the air is moving away from the rocket nozzle and is pushing into the top of the rocket.

There’s not many vacuum chambers big enough to test a rocket without the gas bouncing off the sides a lot.

All you need to know is the basic operating principle of how a rocket works. It’s not “pushing” off the air around it.

>>10839737
What do you think would happen if you fired a rocket in a vacuum? Do you think nothing would happen?

>>10839652
>It just looks bright in the sky because there's nothing brighter to compare it to at night.
Apart from the stars and planets? Sorry but the moon will light up everything in its path, it's been so bright that it has hurt my eyes from looking at it too long, and that's being 240,000 miles away looking through an atmosphere. If you were on the moon in a near vacuum looking at that, you wouldn't be able to handle it.

In regards to your image, watch the animation that it is from and tell me it's real with a straight face. The moon is certainly not that dark and lightless, and if it actually was, how did they take the photos of the earth and the moon at the same time without serious exposure issues?

>>10839765
>Apart from the stars and planets?
Exactly. Those are all extremely din compared to the moon due to how close the moon is.

>>10839665
I have seen the brightness of the moon with my own eyes - it will hurt your eyes if you look at it too long, and that's from 230,000+ miles away.

Explain how being on the surface of the moon and looking at it wouldn't seriously damage your eyes.

>>10839765
>it's been so bright that it has hurt my eyes from looking at it too long
WAT?

>>10839681
>make it look like he died by accident
The workers already knew they weren't allowed to speak publicly, so for Thomas to do such a thing meant they knew there'd be a punishment. Obviously they knew it wasn't an "accident", particularly due to the ridiculous nature of the death.

>>10839778
Or alternatively it was an accident.

>>10839696
What did they use it for? Could it have been used to fake photos/videos?

>>10839774
Because your eyes adjust to a bright environment. If you look at something small and bright in a dark environment your eyes will hurt. If you look at something bright in a bright environment your eyes won’t hurt because they’ll simply let in less light.

The beach on a sunny day is brighter than being on the moon.

>>10839712
Christ, if you think that looks real, what do you think about Star Wars? Do you think it's a documentary?

>>10839781
>Could it have been used to fake photos/videos?
Not videos of people on the fucking moon.

>>10839781
Help plan the missions. Choose landing locations. Help astronauts familiarise themselves with the surface there’d have to navigate.

>>10839785
>the moon landings videos and star wars look equally real to me

>>10839785
Lets rephrase this, What exactly makes you think it doesn't look real?

>>10839732
Pic here >>10839065 is of Langley Research Center with and without sand added. The contraption can't move the props forever, hence why the camera doesn't film the take off for very long.

Also, the camera which is being controlled by someone on earth, is also having its video broadcast in good colour quality 230,000 miles to the earth, where it is being recorded live on a tape for playback later.

The camera didn't even need to change its exposure settings as it panned upwards, how remarkable.

>>10839769
Extremely dim? They look like lights, just very small ones. Some stars are very bright, planets can also be very bright.

>>10839776
Stare at a full moon some time.

>>10839809
>They look like lights,
Dim lights. So dim they are invisible at day time. So dim even a sky full of them hardly offers much light on earth compared to when there’s a full moon out.

>>10839807
OK, those aren't reasons why it isn't real, those are ways to replicate the shot on earth.

>>10839780
What do you think is more likely, he and his family were killed due to his damning NASA report being released just 6 days prior, or he accidentally got hit by a train in his car killing himself and family members which was witnessed by "a woman" despite there being no citation for this "witness".

>>10839812
You do realize we have these things called lux meters right?

>>10839817
Your answer to this question will determine if you are a paranoid schizophrenic or not.

>>10839817
People get killed crossing train tracks all the time More-so in the past when there were less safety systems in place.

>>10839784
>Because your eyes adjust to a bright environment. If you look at something small and bright in a dark environment your eyes will hurt.
This is true, but I can stare at stars and planets, or street lights etc and my eyes won't hurt, or if they do, they eventually stop hurting, however staring at other things only makes the pain worse, like a full moon.

So if I look at a full moon at night from earth, and imagine astronauts atop the surface of that full moon, and I stare at that bright moon to the point it hurts my eyes, how is that moon not hurting the astronauts eyes at a far greater intensity?

>>10839786
But the orbits right? Orbiting the moon and standing on the moon would require different approaches.

>>10839828
>how is that moon not hurting the astronauts eyes at a far greater intensity?
Because the astronauts weren't whiny little bitches like you, they had extensive pilot training and often military/test pilot experience.

>>10839787
>Help plan the missions. Choose landing locations. Help astronauts familiarise themselves with the surface there’d have to navigate.
Proof?

>>10839828
All i can tell you is that the moon is less bright than the earth. So if you can walk around earth during the day time without your eyes hurting, then you can walk in the moon.

They also has visors and shit.

>>10839836
Proof of what? That these were possible things you could use a globe of the moon for?

>>10839832
You can't just put a small thing close and get the same shot as a large thing far away. At that size the fake moon would have to be literally inside the space capsule to have a large enough horizon in the photos.

>>10839832
What would the point be? They has to send probes to the moon to map the surface anyways.

>>10839791
>>10839791
Ignoring the ridiculous 70's sci-fi SFX, the speed and orientation of the craft doesn't change when it pushes off the platform to when it gains altitude.

The lift off is far too smooth and doesn't accelerate, its speed is exactly the same from moment of take off. Exactly what you'd expect from using a crane/pulley system.

>>10839814
They're not dim, they're just small. An actual dim light wouldn't be visible even at night time at a short distance.

>>10839848
>the speed and orientation of the craft doesn't change when it pushes off the platform to when it gains altitude
Yes it does.

>The lift off is far too smooth
I don't see the problem here.
>and doesn't accelerate, its speed is exactly the same from moment of take off.
It does accelerate

>Exactly what you'd expect from using a crane/pulley system.
Why wouldn't a crane pulley system accelerate?

>>10839816
Tell me how it's real.

>>10839848
>Ignoring the ridiculous 70's sci-fi SFX
Are you fucking retarded? What fucking SFX?

>>10839859
People went to the moon, in rockets, multiple times, and left things there, some of which can be verified with lasers from earth.

>>10839818
We also have eyes - if the moon's brightness can hurt my eyes from earth, it most definitely can hurt one's eyes the closer you get to it. I don't need a lux meter to tell me that.

>>10839867
You have special eyes, the moon has never hurt my eyes.

>>10839819
What's your answer?

My answer is of course it was an accident - he was going on a lovely car ride with his wife and stepdaughter, drove towards the railway line and braked to let the train pass.

As the train was approaching, he decided to turn the radio on, but for some strange reason he thought you turned the radio on by stepping on the gas pedal, at which point the car moved forward and collided with the oncoming train.

Luckily there was a woman who witnessed all of this and so knew it was an accident.

As you can see, I'm not a paranoid schizophrenic, I'm based firmly in rational reality.

>>10839820
In a car? Can you explain how it happened as you seem to be knowledgable in this area.

>>10839867
Their helmets are basically giant sunglasses.

>>10839835
I had no idea they trained their eyes too.

>>10839879
I think the train was stalking him after an indecent at the local farmers market where he soiled the train's shoes.

Going out on a limb here, he tried to cross the train-tracks when a train was also going through the same spot at the same time.

>>10839838
>All i can tell you is that the moon is less bright than the earth
So does earthlight create shadows on the moon?
>So if you can walk around earth during the day time without your eyes hurting, then you can walk in the moon.
Most of the time, the surface of the earth isn't reflecting light like a mirror, like the moon does. If the moon has no atmosphere, or an extremely small one, then brightness will be intense.
>They also has visors and shit.
There was no visor specifically for the moon's surface.

>>10839895
>There was no visor specifically for the moon's surface.
Wrong.

>>10839839
You're just making it up then?

Why did they also make pic related?

>>10839901
For training.

>>10839840
What's on the screen in pic related?

>>10839909
No Idea.

>>10839843
>They has to send probes to the moon to map the surface anyways
So you believe.

>>10839855
>Yes it does.
Show.
>I don't see the problem here.
Pushing of a platform that is atop uneven lunar regolith/rocks etc, while the craft also has uneven mass distribution.
>It does accelerate
Show.
>Why wouldn't a crane pulley system accelerate?
They clearly didn't design it that way, there's limited space and they don't want the craft swinging around.

>>10839860
Look at the fucking craft for a start - as well as the pathetic explosion underneath. It is clearly being pulled up from the top, there is no force underneath it.

>>10839862
This is a claim. Lasers were also being reflected off the moon before any reflectors were allegedly put there by machine or man.

>>10839871
Stare at a full moon next time.

>>10839880
Prove it. They had a sun visor but they weren't used the whole time.

>>10839890
>he tried to cross the train-tracks when a train was also going through the same spot at the same time
Totally normal behaviour for a health and safety inspector with family passengers in the car... I ain't buying it - although there was that woman who witnessed it who knew it was an accident so of course you're right...

>>10839897
That doll's visor is for the sun, not the moon's surface.

>>10839904
Please expand.

>>10839911
It's the moon's surface - they're flying around the moon.

>>10839991
You need to train before doing a thing.

>>10839982
>Prove it.
LOOK AT THE FUCKING IMAGE YOU ABSOLUTE MORON.

>>10839765
>In regards to your image, watch the animation that it is from and tell me it's real with a straight face.
It is not animation you retard. It's moon captured by camera focusing on monitoring Earth. Practically same thing what can you see when satellite images on google earth capture moving airplane

Russia was tracking the lunar mission in the hopes of debunking it, or at least being able to be the first ones to let everyone know if it went bad.

>>10840030
What training was that contraption used for?

>>10840033
This is real?

>>10839116
>They like giving out little clues like that
>Prove the cold war was real rather than orchestrated

>>10840106
Don't see why it wouldn't be.

>>10839336
>The shadows in that "moon" picture is clearly using a plaster of Paris model of the moon with a local light source.
Prove it.

>>10839336

>>10839441
>The "craters" clearly being carved by the same artist, he got lazy and carved the same kind of crater multiple times next to each other
What did (he) mean by this

>>10839594
>the absolute state of conspiratards
Back to third-grade physics with you

>>10839982
>They had a sun visor but they weren't used the whole time.
What do you mean?

>>10838680
Earth = flat

>>10839988
moonlight is reflected sunlight

>>10840200
In B4 dumb flat earther says moon actually makes it's own light.

>>10839966
>It is clearly being pulled up from the top
Prove it.
>there is no force underneath it
Prove it.

>>10839901
>Why did they also make pic related?
Dunno. Why don’t you look it up?

>>10839065
SHOOT YOURSELF FAGGOT

>>10839096
RCS THRUSTERS ARE POSITIONED SLAP BANG AROUND THE CENTER OF MASS
EVERY DAY THE SAME FUCKING POSTS AND IMAGES SPAMMED BY THE SAME TWAT
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

>>10839464
>batteries
hydrogen fuel cells

based retard

>>10839441
>The camera also has no trouble capturing the light reflecting off the atmosphere-less moon, despite the moon being bright

>what are exposure settings?

Not sure if this entire thread is someone trolling or genuinely the most obtuse motherfucker on the goddamn planet.

>>10839463
>hasn't read the whole post

>>10840106
If they really tried to fake it they would use better CGI but they just captured Moon photobombing.
You can do something like that yourself. Take camera and record object in large distance and then have somebody or something go in front of you.

https://youtu.be/K0RdrRQ4ags

>>10838707
>Soviet probes left retroreflectors behind too.
I remember hearing that you can essentially use a giant laser pointer aimed at the moon, to get your own light shined back at you, as proof that the moon landings happened.

Is this true? Is this expensive?

>>10841270
You need a pretty powerful/focused laser and a good photo multiplying photon detector. (Since your laser beam will be kilometers across at the moon and the reflection will spread too.)

I've read that you could buy them for $100 or $200 thousand dollars.

>>10838997
How come if I Ctrl+F "(you"
I get a match for your post, but as soon as I add the final paren for "(you)" it breaks the match.

How come if I literally copy-paste "(you)" from your post into my ctrl+f search I do not get a match? Is your final paren like a Greek comma or some shit?

Greek commas are known for looking identical to semicolons and if you replace all or a few semicolons in an IDE with Greek commas you can fuck up the code and no one analyzing it will know what went wrong.

>>10841357
>I've read that you could buy them for $200 thousand dollars or $100 dollars.
I would prefer the $100 dollar model. Where could I find that?

>>10841542
I was using English as it is spoken and with an assumption of a non-autistic, mentally functioning reader. Sorry for the confusion.

>>10841542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA

>>10841779
Neat. Part of me wants to be the kind of person who believes the landings were faked. It would seem like a must more impressive feat to fake all this shit than just go there.

>>10838680
>So, /sci/, do you know of any completely watertight smoking guns for Apollo?
The hundreds of pounds of regolith samples that were extracted from the lunar surface and returned to Earth. These samples have isotopic signatures that are unique to the moon. This has been independently verified by thousands of scientists around the world and is irrefutable proof that we landed on the moon. I have discussed the topic at length with several of my geology professors and am inclined to agree with their assessment.

>>10842112
The problem with regolith is it's created in a vacuum environment without water. Those conditions are basically impossible to replicate on Earth outside certain clean rooms. While we do manufacture some fake regolith it doesn't have the same properties that are found on the moon. You're just not going to be able to replicate micrometeors smashing into your regolith on the microscopic level even in a lab.

There of course is the secondary problem of isotope ratios. The moon has a unique signature, but the impact of Thea makes this somewhat difficult as the Earth and Moon share the same isotopic properties. Of course the Moon again sits in a vacuum all day every day bathed in solar wind particles so even then you'll be able to tell the difference in a mass spec.

You're just not going to manufacture regolith here on Earth and make it convincing under a microscope.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/28dec_truefake/

>>10842112
Oh, although I started with 'The problem with regolith' I really ought not to have done that. I was agreeing with you. Rereading my post really doesn't make that clear.

>>10842112
>>10842169
They just crush up moon rocks found in Antarctica.

>>10838680

The Lunar module descent stages, LRV, ALSEPS and footprints that were left in place at each site, one of which (Apollo 17) will be explored by a German private venture early next year.

>>10841779
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA [Embed]
>>10841898
>Neat. Part of me wants to be the kind of person who believes the landings were faked. It would seem like a must more impressive feat to fake all this shit than just go there.
>So with a normal reflection, you could point a light at the moon and it would go elsewhere and some random guy with a light in his eye wouldn't know what's going on.
>but this is a RETRO reflector so the light literally goes directly into the machine emitting the light, over the exact same path.
>and the only evidence that this is even working as we say it is, is a digital readout on this computer screen.
Speaking of which, does anyone else hate those conspiratards who shit all over Thetan detectors like they're just made up or something?

>>10838680
>Evidence for the Apollo landings
Proof by contradiction. If the moon landings were fake, then why are the only arguments against it tinfoil hat science hating generally incoherent schizo spam that gets btfo every time by common sense and primary level education.

>>10841898
I had a friend in highschool who thought the moon landings were fake, and when I asked him why the dust kicked up by everything follows a different parabolic trajectory than it should in earth g he unironically explained it away as the government having anti gravity technology.
To which I pointed out, if you had anti gravity technology you could just go to the actual moon and fake the moon landing from there.

>>10843969
>Evidence for Scientology
Proof by contradiction. If the El Ron Hubbard were fiction, then why are the only arguments against it tinfoil hat science hating generally incoherent schizo spam that gets btfo every time by common sense and primary level education.

>>10843977
>you could just go to the actual moon and fake the moon landing from there.
>fake the moon landing
>on the moon.
The absolute state of conspiratards

>>10843979
This is a great example why you shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

>253 posts
>38 unique IPs
Every time.

>>10838976
>Such a manoeuvre is practically impossible in space.
What makes you say that?

The sheer amount of coordination required to pull it off. There were a couple hundred thoroughly vetted scientists involved in the development of nuclear weapons in the US and within a few years it was leaked to the Soviets.
There were a couple thousand scientists and technicians involved in the moon landings and no one came out saying it was a big fake. Not even the Soviets who would love nothing more to shame the Americans by proving that their historic achievement was fake.

>>10842227
The ones they didn't realise existed until 20 years after the moon landings?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
A debunker does some maths

>>10845136
>A debunker does some maths
Oh wow. That's definitely an unusual take on "maths".

>>10844781
pretty easy to dup everyone if everyone thought it was real but a few at the top knew the real situation.

Its really impossible to prove 100%, like most other things. Don't spend much time worrying about it. There is a lot of solid evidence we went to the moon.

>>10838733
Do you guys know when they'll make a sequel to steins;gate? Zero doesn't count.