/sci/ - Science & Math

And I'll just bamp it.

What evidence suggests that it's not?

inb4 it's not science, it's fuckin astronomy related. close enough.

Yes.
and yes.

/thread

Honestly, a while back I heard all the skeptics and theories about it being a hoax. It seemed entirely plausible that it was a political stunt. Then I heard the testimonies from the men who went there. I'm pretty good at reading people. . . and that isn't the type of emotion you can fake. . . their accounts, their descriptions. . . the sheer weight of it all nearly brought me to tears. Truly it is an incredible universe we live in.

>>2582330
>astronomy
>even thinking its not science.

Sigh.

and why the fuck would you ask a retarded question like your original post?

There is tons of evidence that we landed on the moon, nobody takes the time to look for it though and fall victim to the conspiracy theorists.

>>2582326

Nothing, the Conspiracy Theory bullshit was already disproven, but some of them do look slightly like a black background. Like this one.

I guess my thoughts are, why does it matter?

>>2582338
>>2582338

This has nothing to do with the conspiracy bullshit, I just wanna get some opinions from /sci/.

>>2582343

Meant artificial black background.

>>2582343
>says conspiracy theories disproven
>doesn't understand why the picture looks the way it does.

you apparently don't know all the disproven theories.

>>2582356
If you don't believe it happened you are with the conspiracy theorists, it has everything to do with it.

You asked is the photo legit, which means you have doubts.

Daily dose.

>>2582363

I already know the stars are dim, but it still slightly looks as though the ground comes to a sudden end.

Here's a better example.

>>2582375
its called no atmosphere.

Also if you look in the first picture you posted, to the top left of the shuttle you can see 2 dim stars.
Which is surprising for those photos.

>>2582385
Well wait technically if you can see them, they are actually pretty bright stars. but you got the point.

yes. if you don't believe us we cannot convince you otherwise. but you can check yourself. you need to buy a sufficiently good telescope (or get some time at a local observatory) and look at various probes and mirrors landed on the mooon. That stuff is all still up there, you just need to find it.

Okay but about the ground...

>>2582401
>you need to buy a sufficiently good telescope (or get some time at a local observatory) and look at various probes and mirrors landed on the mooon.
Actually, you can't do this. You can use lasers and photomultipliers to go the laser range-finding with the reflectors left on the moon, but not even the Hubble space telescope can resolve features that small at the distance of the lunar surface.

>>2582401
i support the moon landings, but why do you guys always use those as an excuse?
We've had multiple moon landings, most conspiracy theorists try to disprove the first one.

Those mirrors could've been placed later.

use this link as a better argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_b
y_independent_parties

Russia and a few other groups tracked their progress, if it was a hoax everyone would know. That disclaims all conspiracy theorists bullshit.
But that mirror bullshit you guys spew is flawed.

>>2582425

Congratulations. +1000 internets for confirming it all.

/thread

What are the crosses in the photos used for? I figure they are used for some kind of measurement, but what exactly?

>>2582425
Yeah, it's my best quick argument for the Apollo 11 mission. The Russians were more than capable of exposing any hoax, and they would have *loved* to do so.

The Russians wouldn't called bullshit and they would have milked that propaganda cow for decades.

But the mirrors prove we have at the very least sent robots.

>>2582453
Not sure. Either for reference, or size/position/distance estimation. It's a built-in ruler.

yes

>>2582453
Not sure. Either for reference, or size/position/distance estimation. It's a built-in ruler (for the photo itself, not the objects in it).

>>2582458
yeah the robot part is also another flaw.

I used to tell people i would run into that were skeptical about the landings that there were mirrors, but they would say that either robots could've put them there, or like i said most try to say the first one didn't happen and a later landing put the mirrors there.

But when i tell people that russia; our greatest enemy back then, and a few other countries were monitoring us, they believe it and stop being skeptical. it still takes a lot more evidence though to make a conspiracy theorist shut up though.

>>2582447
no problem, just trying to make people understand. Makes me sad that people have doubted the moon landings, and even said to the astronauts that went that they didn't go.

speaking of Buzz Aldrin of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

Bastard deserved it.

>>2582497
Here's a longer one. MUCH more insight into what a nutcase and asshole Bart Sibrel is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic

The little bitch tried tried to sue Buzz Aldrin for that punch, too. Didn't work.

>>2582509
oh wow, didn't know there was a longer one, only ever found the shorter version.

thanks for that.

>>2582458
>The Russians would've called bullshit
fix'd

>>2582522
Yeah, I'd seen the shorter one quite a while before I ran into the longer one.

>>2582529
WHAT THE FUCK?

i would've done more then punch him. Bastard said he was going to hell for lying about the moon landing.
i don't believe in god, but that still is a pretty harsh insult.

Buzz has much more restraint than me.

I'm usually not much for using absurd violence to solve trifling issues, but I want to burn Bart Sibel's house to the ground with him chained up inside.

Also, have a fireman in a fireproof suit beating him with a bat.

And have him pumped on adrenaline so he can't pass out.

Oh, that would feel soooo good

in case no one has said it already.

google RETROFLECTOR.

>>2582509

Bart is a cockbag by the looks of it. lol.

There is one claim that Bart makes on Wiki that should be interesting. Someone familiar with orbits should be fit to explain this I think.

>According to McDade, the "only thing new and weird" in the 47-minute film is that the claim that video views of Earth were actually filmed through a small hole to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit

>Sibrel's video represents this cropped version of earth as a stationary object. A motionless, cropped image of earth through a round window would not be possible given the 17,000 mph orbital velocity required of a capsule in low earth orbit. Under the scenario proposed by Sibrel, earth's rotation would be quite visible, even during the few minutes it was broadcast on video by the Apollo 11 crew, thus belying the premise he puts forth

>>2582694
It's obvious the alien illuminati serpentmen from planet nibiru in the transsylvania galaxy put it there.

>>2582509
Buzz Aldrin, performing a second perfect landing.

>>2582509
>>2582497
I'm not one to condone physical violence as a response to verbal provocation, but Jesus Christ... what a fucking asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

This explains all

1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.

2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.

3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.

5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.

>>2584727
6) When the landing module takes off from the Moon’s surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.

7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.

8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.

9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

10) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.

>>2584727

>>2584735

fake. just look at all those + signs on the picture so obvious shopped

>>2584735
>>2584727
Every single one of these is facepalm-worthy

>>2582320
>Did we or did we not really land on the moon?

Of Course. Don't be fuckin retarded. Trollin?

\thread

If you think that humans never went to the moon, you are the most ignorant fuck in existence.
>sadly, you aren't; I'm exaggerating. But you're pretty fucking ignorant.

>>2584584
Here's a relevant part of a pretty thorough debunking. The movie is shit. He doesn't even bother to research his claims.
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

sure thing OP thay are all fake, also magnets work because the devil has demons pushing them together, Beelzebub also faked medical advancements cause he knew if you lived longer you could doubt more. the little small demonoid in your screen is writing this because he knows you will not believe and thus will also go to hell. now please return to /b/ or /x/ or church.

yes we did.
/thread

Who cares?

here is the situation

if(moonlanding=true)
{
pat on the back for humanity
}
else
{
government lied to us (what's new?)
}

>>2582320

Soviet Union never questioned it, and they had a massive impetus to disprove it

>>2584920
nice assignment operator on your conditional statement. Get a B+ in comp sci or something?

>>2584927

>>2584920
my friend you seem to have made a mistake too compare two values you have to type ==
i.e if(moonlanding==true)
...would be right

>>2584955

again

PSEUDOCODE MOTHERFUCKER
DO YOU SPEAK IT

>>2584962
Fuck you. Even pseudocode needs to get that right. It's like using the wrong word in a sentence, and this arguing that it doesn't matter.

>>2584735
>>2584727

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

>>2584920
I guess this proves we did go to the moon.

(moonlanding=true) is always true.

If its real then how do you explain that the cameraman doesnt need a space suit?

>>2585024
gtfo troll, they didn't wear those suits back then and the picture takers were more technologicly advancesd.

>>2585024
that_looks_shopped.jpg

>>2585024

NASA edits the photos. They did back then and they still do today.

Look up moon landing unedited photos. They simply made the image more appealing by removing certain things.