/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6929935

anyone?

>>6929935
i totally LOVE the color in the rocket in the right haha, i also love the EXPLOSIONS! oh god i'm such a NERD hahaha.... but nerd is cool now!

yay science!

>>6929935
I like Professor Xavier's ship

>>6931594
I also have preference for the shuttle, but like you it's probably because of the time I was born.
I do really admire the Saturn V design for getting us to do essentially the same things with much less with much less computing and processing power than we currently have available. Still though, if you're a kid with limited knowledge of the space program and are asked to chose between the two, you know most are going with the shuttle. It's basically airplane vs hypodermic needle to them when it comes to looks.

>>6931628
Is that the one like in Han Solo ?

This isn't science and math, this is straight up /o/. You're not autistic enough to post here if you care about how something "looks" over how efficient it is.

>>6929935
>Which space variant (Ares,Mercury, etc) do you like the best?

what is that from?

This is still the most awesome.

no this is

>>6929935
Saturn V, because it got humans to the Moon. The shuttle while useful did nothing special or of such significance, you could argue that it help build the ISS but that's it.

>>6932202
Most prolific, at least. 950 launches and still going strong!

>>6932515
>The shuttle while useful did nothing special or of such significance
It was on battlefront fighting USSR and won. It is special. Saturn was on the same front but there is a difference one was real the other was not.

>>6929935
> Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959)[190] is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK". In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11. Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth.
> In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine, whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.
>Find out more: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_landings_conspiracy_theories

>>6933372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
>Stanislav Pokrovsky – Russian and General Director of a scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK who calculated that the real speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time was only half of what was declared. His analysis appears to assume that the solid rocket plumes from the fuselage and retrorockets on the two stages came to an instant halt in the surrounding air so they can be used to estimate the velocity of the rocket. He ignored high-altitude winds and the altitude at staging, 67 km, where air is about 1/10,000 as dense as at sea level, and claimed that only a loop around the Moon was possible, not a manned landing on the Moon with return to Earth. He also allegedly found the reason for this – problems with the Inconel superalloy used in the F-1 engine.

>>6933372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
>Stanislav Pokrovsky['s] ... analysis appears to assume that the solid rocket plumes from the fuselage and retrorockets on the two stages came to an instant halt in the surrounding air so they can be used to estimate the velocity of the rocket. He ignored high-altitude winds and the altitude at staging, 67 km, where air is about 1/10,000 as dense as at sea level ...

Easily debunked.

>>6933408
>>6933401
I didn't realize /sci/ was a place where propaganda mattered more than science.

It's funny because if you read that page thoroughly, you'll see the truth peek through here and there. They can only hide it so much. The apollo missions are definitely an area where the more you learn about them and the science and engineering involved, the more it becomes clear they were a television farce, and the only defense the believers have is to get you to stop looking at the evidence, stop trying to learn more and understand more, kill your curiosity and instead fantasize about being an astronaut or maybe Captain Kirk withe that cute green alien girl.

>>6933429
fucking retard

>>6933429
Come on now. I've seen some kooks in my day, but Pokrovsky's something special.

He acknowledges that the Saturn V was real, and capable of at least launching a manned flyby of the Moon. He acknowledges that many objects have been successfully landed on the Moon. He estimates the Saturn V's speed at staging based on blatantly unrealistic assumptions, which have won him followers only among the ignorant and fanatical. Then, to put a cherry on top, he accuses the Soviet Politburo of collusion with the US government.

If his method of estimation was realistic, this wouldn't just be hanging around the lunatic fringe. Mainstream scientists would be saying, "He's right, you know. Solid rocket plumes fired to brake a huge object moving at hypersonic speeds do come to an instant stop in the near vacuum of the mesosphere, therefore the Saturn V couldn't have been working as claimed by NASA." But they aren't saying that, because it's wrong and stupid. So he's just one more kook being kooky, and barely attracting enough attention from sane people to get a brief debunking.

The conspiracy he claims is basically all of the world's major governments and the entire scientific community. This is insanity.

>>6933464
I'm not here to defend Pokrovsky or his conspiracy.

If you consider yourself a scientist, and you believe in the apollo missions, you are a farce.

Just the same if you consider yourself a scientist and then will try to tell me that this (pic related) was caused by office fires and falling debris from 500 feet away.

Is this board about science, or do politics and propaganda come first? I'm tired of listening to academic cowards.

>>6933429
Fuck off to /x/

We are /sci/, we need proff, not your so called "truth"

>>6933471
Go back to /x/

Have you ever tried to stick a fucking plane in a tower ?

>>6933471
>I'm not here to defend Pokrovsky or his conspiracy.
You present one conspiracy theory, and when someone debunks it, you wave your hand vaguely at the large number of other mutually contradictory conspiracy theories, as if one of them must be right just because they all share the same conclusion.

Next week, you'll be posting Pokrovsky's conspiracy theory to someone else as if you hadn't seen the debunking.

Vaguely sciency-sounding conspiracy theories aren't science. The disciplined thought process that goes into debunking them is.

There's nothing less scientific than the pseudoscientific kookery of the conspiracy theory subculture.

>>6933499
The death star explosion was more believable than a plane + jet fuel two-hit combo right in the boss's pre-programmed weak spot.

>>6933499
You're responding to a gif of World Trade Center 7 collapsing. World Trade Center 7 was not hit by a "fucking plane".

>>6933506
>weakspot
150 of steel don't really need a weakspot.
>>6933508
big fucking tower, so

>>6933513
I don't care. It's 2014, and you have the internet at your fingertips. If you tell me that you believe in the official 9/11 story then you prove that you are a still captive victim of propaganda. You are the best line of defense for the enemy who is at war with both of us, and you don't even see it.

| ATTENTION | ACHTUNG | ATTENZIONE |

| EVERYBODY ABOVE THIS LINE HAS BEEN TROLLED |

| ATTENTION | ACHTUNG | ATTENZIONE |

>>6933543
>everyone knows the US government is always right and never lies, anyone else is trolling!
talk about full blown damage control

lets get back to /sci/ pls

>>6934256
government approved science is for cowards and children, which one are you?

Whenever I look at the thing on the left, I see death.

>>6929935
The thing on the right is the only machine that can transport humans to and from the moon.

The thing on the left is Nixon's useless soviet satellite intercepter/jobs program wet dream.

My vote goes to Rudolph and Von Braun's baby.

>>6934298
We were all shocked when Challenger hit one of the WTC's twin towers, but nobody expected Columbia to come barrelling in and take out the other.

>>6934388
9/11/86

Never forget.

>>6934340
How can anyone honestly believe that we built a "machine that can transport humans to and from the moon" in the 1960s? And then after a few quick publicity runs, we mothballed all the equipment and space programs have never recovered?

>>6934410

How can you honestly still be trying to troll this thread 2 days later?

>>6934413
It's not a troll. This is not a game. You exist in a propaganda war whether or not you want to believe.

If you actually cared about science, you'd research the apollo missions more than you already have. If you actually researched the apollo missions independently, you'd come away amazed anyone could still cling to belief in them in 2014.

Literally the only defense you can have against this is ignorance. You can choose to never research this any further than what you were taught in school, a few wikipedia paragraphs, and some shiny documentary. But every year that passes, the hoax will become more and more obvious, as we are unable to achieve any of the miracles witnessed in those missions.

>>6934410
It's not like it was a practical or affordable way to transport people to and from the moon. They planted a flag, picked up a few samples, and that was expensive like fighting a war.

After that came the overt budget cuts in the form of actually reducing money passing through NASA, and the covert budget cuts in the form of earmarking most of that money for favored contractors and jobs programs, so it just passed through NASA and into people's pockets, rather than NASA management being free to spend it effectively.

NASA tried to respond by making dramatic strides in efficiency, with the reusable space shuttle, but it was mismanaged and compromised and politicked until it was just less capable than the Saturn rockets, without being less expensive.

There has been a fair amount of stuff landed on the moon. It shouldn't be regarded as implausible that a few of those payloads included human beings, or that the very expensive capability was abandoned after being demonstrated.

>>6934467

So assuming the Apollo missions were not as we are led to believe, why go through the trouble of the Apollo 13 incident?

>>6934481
It made for better TV ratings and a better distraction from Vietnam.

Every apollo mission after the first had some new gimmick or reason to tune in again, whether it was a color broadcast this time or the first night launch.

Nowadays this point is lost on most as most people have very little knowledge of went on during the Vietnam war or the atrocities America is responsible for.

I've always loved the look of the R-7 rockets

>>6934539

Accept no substitute.

>>6934553
holy shit. my cousin has that, and I was jealous. all I had a was a 1:1000 scale 6" version

Considering how many people went to space before Yuri Gagarin but never returned, I wonder how many russians were on the moon and on mars by know knowing how secretive this sort of thing tends to be.

Though Russia doesn't play the hype and propaganda / patriotistm / international dick measuring games as much as US and would rather sent the far more useful rover or probe instead of a human.

>>6929935
Saturn 5 was probably the more historically significant one but to most people it looks like a dinky capsule on top of a giant fuel tank. The shuttle is a bona fide space ship with a flight deck and a cargo bay and landing gear. It's more iconic because it resonates more with the sci fi ideal of a spacecraft. Also I get the impression that it came a time when there was a deliberate emphasis on the space program in schools, just about every computer lab and science classroom in America had something like pic related. I may be biased on that point because it's the era in which I grew up

>>6934587
funny you say that, because we had a room at my old high school that had a shuttle on the wall. I think it was put up in the early 90s..

>>6934597
>beta_planetery_system.jpg

>>6934587
They definitely produced great artwork back then.


Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, “the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide.”

>>6934815
NASA loved their paintings. Look at enough lunar backdrops and lunar surface shots for more evidence of their artistic skills.

Pic related. You can see the very clear line separating the terrain (the sand on the soundstage) and the background, a few painted hills projected onto a screen (front screen projection).

Once you start noticing the "painted" look, it's everywhere in the apollo pictures.

>>6934539
>>6934544
hard to argue with success! That family almost has more launches (nearly 2000) than all the world's other rockets combined!

>>6935569
and the tapered Soyuz boosters are as iconic of Soviet aerospace as the Saturn height and the Shuttle's wings and Taj-Mahal-like profile.

>>6934539
>>6935569
>success

>>6935538
>>/x/

>>6935586
Yeah, sometimes I forget that /sci/ is about Science (TM) and not science.

Why is it that those crazy moon hoaxers will always encourage you to go learn and research more, while everyone who knows the government would never lie to you is always saying stuff like "shut up, go back 2 /x/, take your meds"?

Which side seems interested in the truth, and which side seems interested with fitting in?

>>6929935
The Saturn V

A)it's a fucking big ass rocket

B)2 of my great uncles worked for NASA, one had a hand in the development of the Saturn V, the other may have as well but I think he was more involved with experimental shit, phantom works type stuff. I don't know specifics because shit was classified so they had signed non-disclosure agreements and shit.

sometimes I stop for a moment and imagine what would happen if conspiratards turned out to be right and no man ever walked on moon

I actually think I would cry like a child and have an absolute breakdown for like a week or so

>>6935603
>Why is it that those crazy moon hoaxers will always encourage you to go learn and research more, while everyone who knows the government would never lie to you is always saying stuff like "shut up, go back 2 /x/, take your meds"?
Because when we go learn and research more, we find out that the crazy moon hoaxers are crazy, wrong, and stupid, but when we point this out, you don't acknowledge it, and you pretend that we haven't learned and researched more.

For instance, in this thread, the initial moon hoax conspiracy theory was Pokrovsky's. It was quickly and easily debunked, which wasn't acknowledged by the person who posted it or any other hoaxer, demonstrating an unwillingness to engage on details and evidence.

This is typical of conspiracy theorists: putting the conclusion before the evidence and only willing to hear one side of the argument. You start to believe something for bad reasons, and when someone shows you proof that the reasons are bad, you go and dig up more bad reasons, repeat until the debunker gets tired fo dealing with your idiocy or you get squirrely about making any specific claims and degenerate into incoherent ranting.

You can't claim the intellectual integrity high ground by encouraging other people to ignore all of the actual evidence and sound reasoning and go read kooky theories instead.

And when you do stuff like show a picture, and say, "This is obviously a painted background. You can just see it. It's so obvious." ...and other people look at it, and what you're seeing just isn't there... well, then you can't be surprised if people start thinking you're paranoid schizophrenic.

People are treating you like this because they HAVE done their homework, and you're showing that you haven't. Your shrill rhetoric that it's really the other way around just makes you look crazier.

>>6935661
Watch Capricorn One (1978); the tears will come.

>>6935666
cool get mr satin
but im one of those pussies who can't watch a movie that has less than 70% on rotten tomatoes

>>6935665
No, you misunderstand. These threads, with a 2000 character limit, a 300 reply limit, etc, are not conducive to any real debate or discussion. There are countless tactics to take advantage of those features of the system to shut down any discussion whatsoever.

I'm not trying to prove anything here; there's not enough space or time. I won't sit here and engage with shills who are paid to keep me busy, I've spent enough time doing that over 9/11.

But that's basically your only tactic: claim that it's all been figured out and proven, the experts are all in agreement, and THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SEE HERE. (See that? I'll tell you to keep looking and learning, but the official story always ends with "nothing more to see here").

But don't believe me: it's been 42 years (43 in a couple weeks) since we had living humans on the moon. And since then, we haven't sent a single living human past low earth orbit. Every space program basically gave up after the apollo missions, and we can't repeat any of the miracles that less than a decade worth of R&D in the 60s produced.

>>6935673
>I won't sit here and engage with shills who are paid to keep me busy, I've spent enough time doing that over 9/11.
Yeah, this here is actual paranoid schizophrenia.

You think your kooky theories make you important enough that someone pays "shills" to argue with you on 4chan about history? They don't, you're not, and there aren't any. And that's obvious to everyone else.

>These threads, with a 2000 character limit, a 300 reply limit, etc, are not conducive to any real debate or discussion.
>But that's basically your only tactic: claim that it's all been figured out and proven, the experts are all in agreement, and THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SEE HERE.
This is blatantly delusional. Again, I point you to the discussion on Pokrovsky's theory.

Kooky claim made, kooky claim debunked with actual facts and reason, kook starts ranting about how the board is "not conducive to any real debate or discussion" and shouting kook slogans instead of being part of the rational and productive discussion that is happening around him.

>>6935688
>You think your kooky theories make you important enough that someone pays "shills" to argue with you on 4chan about history? They don't, you're not, and there aren't any. And that's obvious to everyone else.

JTRIG. JIDF. It has been proven over and over there are shills arguing all over the internet about history. Maintaining their country's narrative has been just as important as infiltrating any dissenting groups.

So the question is, are you naive or lying?

>>6935696
>So the question is, are you naive or lying?
Why do you have to phrase everything in this tedious, cheap rhetoric?

There is a third possibility here: that THIS issue isn't important or interesting, and your kooky theories about it don't threaten anyone and are just perceived as silly and indicative of mental health issues.

>>6935696
Are you serious right now?
Do you honestly believe that there are paid government agents to sit on 4chan just to point out how ridiculously stupid you are, or could it maybe be possible that you're actually ridiculously stupid?

I never understood when people yell "YOU'RE BEING PAID TO DO THIS!" Imagine a wacky world where that was true - if their arguments are illegitimate it'd be easy to point out where their wrong, regardless of where they're from or what they're being paid. But we're not. I'm a college student. And from what I can tell, you posted shit evidence, someone pointed out it was shit. You have no leg to stand on to say that we didn't land on the moon.

I never understand moon conspiracy theorists. Did Apollo 10 happen? Did we orbit the moon? If you said Apollo 11 didn't happen, what about Apollo 12, 13,14,15,16,17? What about the Gemini missions? What about Soviet rover missions onto the moon?

>>6935712
Billions of dollars of taxpayer fraud, generations of children brainwashed with entertainment masquerading as science, a mass propaganda experiment shaping your country's hopes and dreams, these are not important or interesting?!

>>6935720
>I never understand moon conspiracy theorists.
Look, just from your own post, you've described what's preventing you from the truth. It looks like you never tried. I'm guessing you haven't realized yet that with every real conspiracy theory, the ones responsible create additional false conspiracy theories, to throw people off the track and make anyone questioning look crazy. A great example is the "no planes" theory with 9/11, or the "micronukes" theory. False trails meant to waste your time on.

Maybe it would be shocking to you to learn that the term "conspiracy theorist" was weaponized by the US government in a way to discredit anyone that questioned the JFK assassination.

But you're a college student. You've been passively receiving information for more than a decade, obediently repeating it back on the test. The perfect brainwashing system. It shows in the way that you seem to expect that I would come here and post good evidence for you. Good evidence is available at your fingertips! This is the information age! We are on the internet right now! How do people walk around so uninformed about everything constantly, satisfied that if someone was worth knowing they would have been told about it in school or on the TV?

That's the point I'll constantly make. You have the ability to learn in ways that your ancestors can only dream of, but the truth is that people want entertaining and comforting lies, not the ugly truth.

For starters on the Apollo missions, all the moon landings were faked. The vast majority of the space program up to that point was fake. Russia had their own fake space program with their own miraculous claims. If you had ever looked into this on your own, you would know this.

>>6935739
>Space programms are all fakes.

Explain me GPS, please.

>>6935753
What is there to explain? GPS satellites are within the magnetosphere, the same magnetosphere that protects us so well, the same magnetosphere we can't survive outside of.

So are you retards basically saying that the recent Orion launch was for shits and giggles and they wasted a fuckload of money just to maintain the belief that we're going somewhere with space exploration? I bet you think the module is empty inside or something.

What are you doing on /sci/ by the way?

>>6935739
>Billions of dollars of taxpayer fraud, generations of children brainwashed with entertainment masquerading as science, a mass propaganda experiment shaping your country's hopes and dreams, these are not important or interesting?!
Not when the claims are only supported by wild theories that always turn out to be full of errors in fact, science, and logic when examined in detail.

There are moon hoaxer specials on TV, up there with the homeopathic remedy informercials and the shows about the pyramids being built by UFOs. You're not in on some dangerous secret. You just believe something really spectacularly dumb.

>>6935767
>There are moon hoaxer specials on TV
Why do you think you can get your facts from the TV?

The moon landings were an excellent test of the new propaganda device households across the country were installing in their homes, the television.

Would you rather watch a program about the horrors of what we were doing in Vietnam, or one about how we were the greatest country on earth having just conquered the moon in the name of science and humanity?

>>6935739
>no no no really the government is keeping us down
>they're all faked, believe me, really, even the Russians, every thing related to the moon is faked

Nice hot evidence there. Obviously nothing I say is going to convince you, you truly are a True Believer. But I like to walk into every discussion with the thought that I might be wrong. So I have looked into it a little bit and I have been thoroughly convinced that we landed on the moon. Let me just spit out some evidence that has justifiably convinced me:

- Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments
- Moon Rocks
- There are more than just the human missions, I find it stretch that every piece of data, pictures, video and information for all the missions to the moon from multiple nations have all been fabricated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon))
- Technical feasibility of going to the moon - just by doing math and knowing how big of an engine we can make, it isn't an impossible idea to go to the moon
- Thousands of people engineering, designing and preparing to go the moon and 12 people that can literally attest that they have walked on the moon
- All the video evidence, including launch, orbit, astronauts in orbit and on the moon.
- All scientific data that we received from probes that independently support conjectures of the moon before hand

How about something that would give me great pause, but I have yet to see it:
- Official documents directing to cover up the moon landing (Russian, USA, China etc) despite many leaks of the NSA and of the Afghanistan War, nothing about moon landing or space exploration

These are off the top of my head. Like I said, I can always be wrong, please convince me. However, I expect a response along the lines of "Shill! Just look into it! You're being deceived!"

>also SAGE

>>6935786
I have looked into this a whole lot more than "a little bit". I've spent years looking in to this. Why do you think that you can "look into it a little bit" and then get to the truth? Why would you speak confidently about something you admit you aren't even familiar with?

Let's start with the lunar laser ranging experiment. Some True Believers claim that what was dubbed the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment proves that we really went to the Moon. As the story goes, the astronauts on Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 all allegedly left small laser targets sitting on the lunar terrain (pic related), so that scientists back home could then bounce lasers off the targets to precisely gauge the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon.

The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963. No 2 foot fancy mirror required.

>>6935786
“Well,” you now say, “what about all those cool Moon rocks? How did they get those? The Moon is, you know, the only source of Moon rocks, so doesn’t that prove that we were there?”

No, as a matter of fact, it does not prove that we were there, and as odd as it may sound, the Moon is not the only source of Moon rocks. As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. Because the Moon lacks a protective atmosphere, you see, it gets smacked around quite a bit, which is why it is heavily cratered. And when things smash into it to form those craters, lots of bits and pieces of the Moon fly off into space. Some of them end up right here on Earth.

By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition.

And if you still are concerned with the moon rocks, you should look into the ones given to the Dutch by USA: they were petrified wood.

Pic related, totally not craft glue.

>>6935765
>So are you retards basically saying that the recent Orion launch was for shits and giggles and they wasted a fuckload of money just to maintain the belief that we're going somewhere with space exploration?
I'm the guy who has probably posted the most in this thread to debunk moon hoaxer conspiracy theories, and I totally think that the recent Orion launch was wasting a fuckload of money.

SLS/Orion is garbage. Orion is heavier than the Apollo capsule, but SLS is less powerful than Saturn V. Do the math on that: they're not going anywhere interesting. It can't take men to the moon again. It can't take men to Mars. It's so damn silly.

It's just pork for the old space shuttle contractors. For this launch, Boeing got hundreds of millions of dollars, and Lockheed Martin got hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's pretty much why the launch happened.

There's just too much politics involved in NASA management. The best thing they're doing now is throwing money at SpaceX, who have got real ambition.

>>6935814
In February 2001, NASA posted a ‘debunking’ article that argued that the rocks allegedly brought back from the Moon were so distinctive in nature that they proved definitively that man had gone to the Moon. The problem though with maintaining a lie of the magnitude of the Moon landing lie is that there is always the danger that in defending one part of the lie, another part will be exposed. Such was the case with NASA’s ill-conceived The Great Moon Hoax post, in which it was acknowledged that what are referred to as “cosmic rays” have a tendency to “constantly bombard the Moon and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks.”

NASA scientist David McKay explained that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”

So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

Lies always end up in ridiculous contradictions.

>>6935775
>>There are moon hoaxer specials on TV
>Why do you think you can get your facts from the TV?
That's not the point.

There are guys like you making TV shows about what you're talking about. You're not being suppressed by secret government agents. Everyone just thinks you're dumb.

>>6935808
Link to National Geographic? Link to New York Times?

Could you explain to me how one would bounce a laser off the moon and receive it back to Earth? Any small incident angle would drastically over shoot the earth or land in a different continent because the distance to the moon and earth is so large.

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment works because they're parabolic mirrors, meaning that when we hit it with a laser, the laser comes back the same direction, allowing us to record our laser pulses.

Furthermore, the reflectivity of moon regolith is not well understood but measured to be about ~40% to 60% reflectivity. A mirror is 99% or more reflectivity. The simple strength of the laser received disproves that its bouncing off the moon surface.

Tell me anywhere where I'm wrong.

>>6935816
Orion is TWO TIMES lighter than Apollo despite being a little larger and being capable of having 4-6 crew members as opposed to apollos 3

at least that's what NASA says on their website

>>6935814
It's true that moon rocks are knocked onto Earth, but are you seriously saying that we got ~800 pounds of moon rock from these relatively rare events?

Furthermore, the radioactivity from the solar wind and unprotected moon atmosphere can tell you how long they're been out in space/on the moon.

So yeah how did they survive those super fucking deadly cosmic rays that conspiracy theorists keep talking about?

>>6935847
they don't exist

>>6935832
Please, take this as an opportunity to go learn more, having realized how little you know about this. Please, go look into this. Please don't stop at a few conspiracy or debunking sites. You're on the right track but you need to keep asking questions and looking for more answers. Please stop being passive with your knowledge and learning, please take responsibility for your own perception and survival.

The lasers we use to bounce off the moon are so powerful that the beams are around 15km when they reach the moon. It's just not possible that a 2 foot mirror is both required to reflect that back, and sufficient enough. If a mirror is required, a 2 foot one just cannot be large enough. You won't be able to find proof that a mirror is required though, because that same proof would be able to be turned around and used to show that 2 feet is not enough.

>>6935847
>>6935861
Ah, the Van Allen radiation belts. The hoaxers will tell you that you cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them.

As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers’ are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon.

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm))

Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to the Moon. But now, I guess, being that we are more cultured and sophisticated, we want to do it the right way so we have to come up with some way of shielding our spaceships.

>>6935863
Light expands in a cone as it travels, that's why it's 15km when it reaches the moon. We only need a 2 foot mirror because the 2 feet expand in a cone on the way back and get much larger. It's not "required" because of power, it's required for direction. This is Fermat's principle, if we just hit the moon surface, it would bounce with whatever incident angle we hit it with - we need a parabola.

And where are the links about the newssites? If what you're saying is correct I would love to see some technical details.

Just wondering, do you hold any possibility that you may be wrong? Are you searching for truth or just preaching?

>>6935819
>astronauts who spend a day or two on the moon should have received as much radiation as rocks which have been there for millions of years

This is your argument?

>>6935867
wait, I'm lost
so how did the Apollo astronauts survive if the going-sanic-fast is bullshit? It wasn't just luck, r-right?

>>6935879
They got very little radiation because of limited exposure time. Whole mission took just a week or two. He is trying to say this is a problem because NASA is concerned about radiation on a potential mars mission, which would take not weeks, but years.

>>6935874
I'm always searching for the truth.

>>6935877
No. My 'argument' is far too long to fit in 300 2000 character limit posts, except that you should never stop searching for the truth. You obviously have much more to learn about this topic, and yet the combative way in which you act, combined with your passivity in your own search for the truth, create a perfect defense of your ignorance.

I am so confident in my conclusions about this issue that I will continue to tell you to look into it some more if you still believe in it. Just like saying the best way to deconvert a Christian is to get them to read their Bible thoroughly.

I noticed no one really wanted to touch the obvious front screen projection I posted earlier. Here is how long it takes a beam of light to travel to the moon. Outside of the apollo missions, humans haven't been beyond a few hundred miles away from Earth. The moon is 237,000 miles away from the Earth on average. I think it's just too obvious when you actually look at it, and the only defense is to avoid going into depth on any of these subjects.

>>6935884
Yeah I figured it out soon after posting.
I need more caffeine, damn.
Thanks though.

So do we have any ideas on how to shield ourselves when the time for Mars mission comes? I remember reading the article you(?) posted, have we made some progress since?

>>6935892
Www.clavius.org

Then search here, and anyone else who has questions should as well.

In any case, on topic for this thread:

Saturn V is the better launch vehicle, the STS is more iconic.

>>6935894
Not the same guy who posted the article but I've read about some ideas. Water is good at blocking radiation, so there are ideas involving using some sort of water supply as shielding.

>>6935884
>>6935894
When you take all of NASA's arguments together, it becomes clear that there is a coincidence to explain every anomaly, and yet those coincidences can't be applied elsewhere for other reasons. Such as the radiation being too strong and then not at all, etc.

Here's an example of that same pattern with the moon landing pictures, the first photo on the moon. The lighting is just all wrong.

NASA will claim that this is an actual photo from the moon, showing the sun's light on the moon's surface unfiltered by an atmosphere.

It was taken from an analog camera strapped to the chest of an astronaut, unable to see through its viewfinder, in a suit with gloves far too bulky to adjust any settings on the camera. And yet the picture is in focus and well-exposed and well-framed; everything is clear and detailed, even well lit.

The shadows on the lunar surface are practically pitch black. They blot out all detail. This would make sense, in theory, if there were no atmosphere to reflect light. And yet the shadows on the bag and the LM are much lighter; you can see the words "UNITED STATES" extremely clearly and well lit.

NASA will claim that they were lit from reflected light from the lunar surface. In another breath they'll be quick to tell you that the albedo of the lunar surface is actually rather low, and it's somewhat of a poor reflector, but here the lunar surface was strong enough to reflect light to perfectly frame the "UNITED STATES" logo, but just not good enough at all to light up any part of the shadows on the surface of the moon.

It requires such amazing mental leaps to believe all these things at the same time. The lies add up so high they debunk themselves.

>>6935900
>Saturn V is the better launch vehicle
It's too bad NASA has lost the original blueprints for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” -Dr. Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

>>6935833
>Orion is TWO TIMES lighter than Apollo despite being a little larger and being capable of having 4-6 crew members as opposed to apollos 3
I'd like to see where they say that.

Orion is consistently described as a 4 crew vehicle. They could probably pack 6 in for a LEO trip to ISS, but Orion's totally unsuitable for ISS shuttling. If it was ever intended to carry 6, it no longer is now.

Orion capsule (crew module) mass: 22,900 lbs
Orion total orbital mass: 58,467 lbs
Orion propellant load: 20,450 lbs (estimated by subtracting service module dry mass from gross lift-off mass)
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf

Apollo capsule (crew module) mass: 12,250 lbs
Apollo CSM total orbital mass (configured for LEO mission): 32,390 lbs
Apollo CSM total orbital mass (configured for lunar mission): 63,500 lbs
Apollo CSM propellant load (configured for lunar mission): 40,590 lbs
Additional mass of lunar module: 33,500-36,200 lbs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module

Apollo going to LEO had about half the mass of the Orion spacecraft. The Apollo CSM going to the moon had a roughly equivalent mass to that of Orion (63,500 vs. 58,500 lbs), but the Apollo CSM has twice as much propellant as Orion (40,600 vs. 20,500 lbs)

Bloated Orion on anemic SLS isn't going anywhere interesting. I'm not sure they can even get to low lunar orbit and back. The Apollo CSM is nearly 2/3s propellant, while Orion is only about 1/3 propellant. The delta-V would be much, much lower.

Orion is not an exploration vehicle. At best, it's transportation to a lagrange point station.

>>6935916
I admire your dedication, because I'm not wasting my time on explaining you why you're so god damn wrong.
This is late middle school level optics if I remember right.

>>6935916
>It was taken from an analog camera strapped to the chest of an astronaut, unable to see through its viewfinder, in a suit with gloves far too bulky to adjust any settings on the camera. And yet the picture is in focus and well-exposed and well-framed; everything is clear and detailed, even well lit.
Look, believe it or not, but you could actually do these things before. It's not like the astronauts were in any way surprised to land on the moon and it's not like anything too surprising was going to happen on the moon. In fact, there probably was a whole team of scientists exclusively to get the camera working. Taking photos was one of most important objectives of this mission. If you now what's coming it's pretty easy to get a focused, well-lit photograph. There are many things you can do to make sure. Also
>unable to see through its viewfinder
It was a hasselblad, there is no traditional viewfinder.

>The shadows on the lunar surface are practically pitch black. They blot out all detail. This would make sense, in theory, if there were no atmosphere to reflect light. And yet the shadows on the bag and the LM are much lighter; you can see the words "UNITED STATES" extremely clearly and well lit.
Because it's lit by scattered light from the moon surface. If you seriously ask why that doesn't happen to the drop shadows, just fucking think about the geometry. Really, I see NOTHING unnatural about these shadows at all.

>It requires such amazing mental leaps to believe all these things at the same time. The lies add up so high they debunk themselves.
Not really, but it sure takes amazing mental retardation to come up with this bullshit.

>>6935940
America kicked ass back then and those lunar modules performed like champions every single time! They didn’t even need any modifications! Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first time and every time thereafter!

On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon? We nailed that shit the very first time.

Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the friggin’ Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can’t come close to matching the kick-ass safety record we had in the Apollo days.

The thing is that, back in the frontier days, we didn’t need all that fancy technology and book-learnin’ to send Buzz and the boys to the Moon and back. Back then, we had that American can-do spirit and we just cowboyed up and MacGyvered those spaceships to the Moon. All we needed was an old Volkswagen engine, some duct tape and a roll of bailing wire. Throw a roll of butt-wipe and a little Tang on board and you were good to go.

>>6935941
In middle school, you were lied to about this. How hard is it to lie to middle schoolers?

Now, you're showing you don't want to talk about it. It's beneath you to care. You can't be assed to look into it any further, what's the point? You know everything worth knowing.

>>6935949
For someone who claims to have done your research you sure do say a lot of flat out wrong things.

The lunar modules were indeed changed between flights most majorly between the early class missions and the j class extended missions.

Anyone who says the LM was never tested hasn't read anything about Apollo 9 and 10.

>>6933429
>mfw Every hobby astronomer can look at the landing sides with a good telescope and verify their existance
>mfw there are mirrors on moons surface placed there before the astronauts returned to earth
>mfw Scientists on earth fire a laser at the moon to the coordinates where the mirror is supposed to be
>mfw it gets reflected
>mfw peoples actually believe the moon landing did not take place

>>6935953
you know, I'd rather look into optics on a more advanced level than middle school simply because I know for a fact that what I was taught is true
and why is that?
because I happen to specialise in optoelectronics, you fucking retard
I had to go through countless experiments that at some level are based on those very base middle school level equations and shit

you are right about one thing though
I ain't talking about it no more, conspiracy nuts are worse than the most devoted religious people

So, its the 60's. The lander IS on the moon and the pictures are shit. Millions of dollars and 400,000 jobs are heading down the drain because the tech is bad. What would YOU do? Various political, intelligence and military departments are on you for results... hmm?

>>6935936
>It's too bad NASA has lost the original blueprints for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
They didn't. This is a myth.

What they lost is the tribal knowledge, specialized skilled workers, facilities, and industrial context of the Saturn V.

Products like specific types of sheet metal which were on the market then aren't available anymore. The kind and quality of welding they did is no longer a common skill. The people who designed Saturn V, who involved themselves in the testing and development, are retired or dead.

The main reason SLS sucks is interference from Congress. They mandated the use of shuttle parts (and, not incidentally, shuttle contractors), which are just not very appropriate.

NASA could functionally recreate the Saturn V, taking advantage of the experience and redesigning it for modern production methods, but they weren't allowed that option.

>>6934497
Nowadays the point of true space exploration driven by curiosity instead of financial or political desires is lost on most as most peoples have very little knowledge of what went on during the first moon landing or the incredible performance of an international (yes amerifats, nasa is not amerifat only, get over it) team of scientists, researchers and astronauts.

>>6935963
It takes something a lot more powerful than a hobby telescope to image the surface of the moon in that resolution.

Pic related, it's from NASA's LRO. Maybe this is conclusive iron-clad proof that the moon landings happened, or maybe NASA shits out some pixellated image because it doesn't have the heart to keep this up much longer.

What will your face be when even NASA admits the moon landings were fake? At some point in the future, they'll prove the landings fake just by the progress they make in actual space exploration. What will you say then? Will you proudly tell everyone you made fun of anyone who tried to get you to look into something deeper, to stop pretending you already know everything worth knowing because... school?

>>6935977
>And lift-off! At dawn. The dawn of Orion and a new era of AMERICAN space exploration.

This is precisely what I heard on NASA stream.

>>6935976
No one can recreate the Saturn V. The information has been lost. Same with all of that amazing 60s technology, that nowadays has to be recreated from scratch, often to nowhere near as effective as the apollo versions.

To anyone reading this, they are hoping that you won't look into any of this any further. That is the ultimate defense of apollo believers. That there's nothing to see here.

If you actually followed the space industry from its inception to today, in detail, you'd see that the moon landings were a beautiful myth. But it's 2014, and not only can we see that they were just 60s special effects, but you can see that false beliefs in science haven't done any good to advance real space exploration, no matter how hopeful we all feel while watching Cosmos.

>>6935995
>No one can recreate the Saturn V. The information has been lost.
It's not going to become true just because you repeat it.

There has been a lot of work on redesigning the Saturn V engines for modern production techniques, much of it related to the development of SLS. (end result: yes, we could do it; yes, it's a good option; yes, we need to do something like this if we want to put men on Mars; no, Congress says we have to use shuttle parts)

The products were the F-1B and J-2X:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X

They've been shelved, but may be used on later versions of the SLS with F-1B-powered boosters and a larger upper stage.

>>6936010
Since you've provided no blueprints for the Saturn V, nor anyone who has recreated it, I'll take that as you agree that no one can recreate the Saturn V today.

Talk about other rockets you want, with substantially smaller payloads that are much more realistic after having been redesigned, but don't claim they're the Saturn V. They may have started out from there, but their designs greatly diverged as soon as they tried to get anything to work in real life and not just on paper.

>>6936022
>Since you've provided no blueprints for the Saturn V
You say shit like this, then complain that nobody's taking you seriously.

You don't deserve to be taken seriously. You say one idiotic thing after another, and you're just cluttering up a moderately interesting thread with your off-topic conspiracy-theory garbage.

>>6936029
>You say one idiotic thing after another, and you're just cluttering up a moderately interesting thread with your off-topic conspiracy-theory garbage.
and he's avoiding any counter argument because he has actually no idea what he's talking about.

>>6936029
[backpedaling intensifies]

>>6936037
What counter arguments? All I see are insults and dismissals by kids who are convinced they know everything they need to know.

There are so many unanswered mysteries surrounding the apollo missions, and it amazes me that no one wants to look at them. Why is everyone so dismissive in this thread?

Why is there no blast crater under the LEM?
Why don't the space suits expand under the vacuum of the moon?
How did Apollo solve the problem of lethal radiation?
With so many companies involved in the Apollo project, how is it possible that the world lost every LEM and lunar rover blueprint?
Since earth should look very large on the moon's horizon, how is it that the sun looks larger than earth in the moon's sky?
How did the rover attach to the LEM? Where are the photos of the rover attached to the LEM? Where are the photos of rover assembly?
How did astronauts egress from a LEM port too small to fit through?
How were they able to know so precisely where the returning Apollo capsules would splash down?
Why do moon photos so often indicate the work of professional photographers using special lighting?
How did astronauts manage to make such small leaps in moon gravity? (pic related)

>>6936050
>Why do moon photos so often indicate the work of professional photographers using special lighting?
This was already answered, but you just ignored it. Because you actually don't know anything about optics, photography or actually physics in general. It's obvious that you just want to believe that crap to feel special. In another thread there's a video of some guy with 2 PhDs and an IQ of 200 who claims to have cracked some super conspiracy. You'll like that too.

A

Y

>>6936062
This is all they have. Constant mockery.

They call you stupid if you question. People who are smart don't question. People who are smart either know the experts are right, or they are experts themselves. No need to question. Are you stupid or something?

Pic related, it's that lack of LEM blast crater, which should have been produced by the method of landing.

>>6936080
Y

Y

>>6936050
>There are so many unanswered mysteries
There aren't any. You just refuse to look for the answers and ignore them when they're provided.

Satisfactory answers to each of those questions can be found in about 10 seconds on google.

I've already provided a couple of answers for you. You just ignored or dismissed them, without any good reason.

This is how people lose respect for you. You have this list of questions, but as soon as someone knows the answer to one of them they know you're full of shit and don't want to be bothered with the rest of them. You can't just throw masses of poorly-thought-out criticism and see what sticks. You shouldn't make a claim unless you can make a clear case for it.

>>6936089
You're hanging on to one point so desperately, and using that as justification to ignore everything else, to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm trying to find a way to tell you that that strategy turns you into an easy prey. It has been carefully fostered in you, for exactly this kind of control. It is mental, you refuse to look at anything else, you have convinced yourself you already know everything, and will just continue to respond with emotional arguments from here on out.

I didn't mean to link that one professor's argument as if that was the whole of my argument, nor my particular belief, only to open the discussion to a wider array of viewpoints.

This is a propaganda war. Are you paying attention to the tactics that are going on?

>>6936094
This post contains no information whatsoever.

>>6936094
>Are you paying attention to the tactics that are going on?
I'm paying attention to your tactics. You won't pick an argument and stick to it. You make false claim after false claim and aren't bothered when they're debunked. There's no information that would change your mind.

>>6936097
"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" - 'The Laser's Bright Magic', Thomas Meloy. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Dec 1966

>>6936097
"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time." -Dr. William Jefferson Clinton, former President of the United States of America

“If NASA had really wanted to fake the moon landings – we’re talking purely hypothetical here – the timing was certainly right. The advent of television, having reached worldwide critical mass only years prior to the moon landing, would prove instrumental to the fraud’s success.” -Wired Magazine

These special effects might have seem convincing in the 60s and 70s, but in 2014, they just don't reach the bar when it comes to realism.

>>6936212
Meant to use this particular scene, but the point still stands.

>>6936097
Why does the earth appear so incredibly small in comparison with the sun which appears way too big?

>>6936264
Maybe because the Sun is bigger than the Earth?

>>6936309
No that's another NASA conspiracy. WE can see both the Sun and the Earth here. The Sun is obviously smaller, I can cover it with my finger. I can't cover the earth with my hand even. Stupid idiots.

>>6936309
>>6936319
Greatest achievement of humanity, or after school television special?

>>6936264
the real pathetic thing about this is that you probably dedicated your whole life to this conspiracy. Don't you have something more important to do?

i mean even if your stupid fantasy fairytale idea was true, what would it change? do you expect a revolution or a shift in democracy or the fall of man because kennedy lied 40 years ago?

>>6936361
On /sci/, being told that it's pathetic to dedicate your life to learning the truth.

If that's a valid argument then this is a real spaceship.

>>6936373
no sir, without mathematical proof of your observations, on /sci/ you're nothing more than a philosopher working at McDicks. lurk more, faggot

>>6936264
Are you some sort of an idiot? I mean, seriously, come on.

>>6936401
Please explain how I could complete a proof regarding the non-existence of something, mathematically.

It doesn't work that way.

>>6935980
>link to video of picture you posted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTQoNcHTUSw

>What will your face be when even NASA admits the moon landings were fake?
these peoples arguments are getting more and more holo...

Here's some more apollo art. The moon looks the same as the painted background texture here (>>6935538). Is this just a coincidence, as they are both pictures of the moon, even though they show the moon's surface at vastly different resolutions? Or could it be that it was the same techniques used to create both images?

>>6936452
yes there exists something: 'fake' images of a moon landing. no one of your kind EVER calculates three dimensional geometries of shadows caused by light sources from certain angles living in <span class="math">\mathbb{R}^3[/spoiler], as an example. These kind of things are easy to falsify by basic optics. Instead all you do is asking spooky questions like 'why are there these weird looking shadows!?!?'

>>6936080
The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.

The crust of the moon is made up of concrete-like regolith. As asteroids and meteorites collide with the surface, they blast it into fine pieces that capture imprints (such as Neil Armstrong's famous footprint) in exceptional detail.

The crust of the moon is about 38 to 63 miles (60 to 100 kilometers) thick. The regolith on the surface can be as shallow as 10 feet (3 meters) in the maria or as deep as 66 feet (20 meters) in the highlands.

>>6936513
Ah that old NASA special pleading. They landed on solid rock, just happened to be surrounded by dust/sand deep enough for everything else to leave impressions, including footprints. An oasis of solid rock in a desert of dust.

>As asteroids and meteorites collide with the surface, they blast it into fine pieces that capture imprints (such as Neil Armstrong's famous footprint) in exceptional detail.
I don't even know what to say to this, are you high?

>>6936525
>They landed on solid rock,
Yes because you read that earlier I said "The crust of the moon is made up of concrete-like regolith"

>just happened to be surrounded by dust/sand deep enough for everything else to leave impressions, including footprints.
As asteroids and meteorites collide with the surface, they blast it into fine pieces
are you saying you dont believe that asteroids did'nt land on the moon?


An oasis of solid rock in a desert of dust.

>>6936525
i don't even know why i am humoring you. It is clear you don't know shit...

>>6936549
I think what the anon is trying to say is that the landing rocket should have blasted the dust away and not left any for there to be foot print in so close to the vehicle.
I don't know any properties of regolith or moon dust, so I can't comment

>>6935976
SLS using Shuttle parts actually follows the tradition of the Saturn vehicles. The first stage Saturn 1B tankage were clusters of Jupiter and Redstone rocket tanks; definitely not an optimal design.

>>6936212
So are you saying all the Apollo Launches were unmanned and once the rocket was out of eyesight/camera sight (upper atmosphere) it quietly dropped back down to earth?

wow, this thread has reached maximum overtroll!

How the fuck were they capable of transmitting a live video feed from the fucking moon to cable channels in the 1960's on their first fucking try?

>>6936579
How can any troll compare with NASA? They made trolling a art form long before the internet.

>>6936600
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

>>6936607
wut?

>>6936619
That doesn't explain anything about the equipment required for that transmission, nor the power required for that equipment. More places where we are missing the blueprints for technology that would be a new innovation if we could reproduce it today.

Even more than that, it ignores the explanation of how the footage we know and love today was created: because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.

So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that.

We got color eventually, but you can be the judge if that helps or hurts the legitimacy of these landings.

>>6936622
that pic...
>JarJar Spivey, Jedi Medium, Stormtrooper

>>6936600
>cable channels

but anyway, there is a nice docudrama about the antennas and telecommunication involved called "The Dish".

I saw an Saturn V at the Huston space center. It's inspiring to say the least.

>>6936264
yuropoor please go

>>6936634
Yeah, even today with wired internet connections, streaming video (whether something live like a sporting event or a recorded tv show) is an unreliable nightmare, even when the streaming source is a billion dollar company like ESPN.

And yet in the 60's we were able to *wirelessly* send a live video feed from a different cosmic object with no hiccups, on the first try?

>>6936373
wtf

>>6936634
How the hell are you not banned yet? Keep this shit in >>>/x/

>>6936568
>SLS using Shuttle parts actually follows the tradition of the Saturn vehicles. The first stage Saturn 1B tankage were clusters of Jupiter and Redstone rocket tanks; definitely not an optimal design.
Yeah, but for the Saturn I, they got the idea in 1957, it was approved to go ahead in 1958, it first flew in 1961, and the Jupiter and Redstone were just a few years old and still in active production.

NASA was asked to produce a shuttle-derived expendable in 2004, to be ready when the shuttle was planned to retire in 2010. Ten years later, still no rocket here, still no rocket in sight. If SLS was a new program started today, it wouldn't launch as quickly as Saturn I did.

It's a cobble-job rather than a clean-sheet design for no technical reason at all, but simply so money can continue to flow to the shuttle contractors.

Exiled /pol/ack here,
Sorry it seems some of our conspiratards are leaking out into the wild. We hope to have this issue fixed as quickly as possible but, in the mean time, we are thankful for your cooperation is making these idiots shut the fuck up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

>>6936842
His argument is superficial, as it stems from misconceptions about the process used to create the footage. Ultimately he is claiming that they did not have the film technology back then to create the fakes. We have this film technology today, and much better technology. It is completely within the realm of possibility.

My argument is that we did not have the technology back then to go to the moon. We still do not have the technology to go to the moon, it is not really within any of our reasonable expectations. Anyone who follows NASA could tell you that. But we can make amazing movies that are so realistic no one would ever tell (Gravity, Interstellar).

Pic related is from a film released the year before the moon landings. I think it's clear we're looking at many of same techniques used in the apollo footage, in rough draft form.

>>6936869
>we did not have the technology back then to go to the moon. We still do not have the technology to go to the moon
But we obviously did and do have the technology. We could go to orbit. We could land unmanned probes on the moon and receive radio signals from them. We can keep people alive for months at a time in space. We could rendezvous in orbit. We can hit precise orbits and do precise orbital maneuvering. Various space agencies have independently sent a large number of probes through the same radiation belts, and know very well what the radiation is like (and no, it wouldn't be fatal to people who passed through it quickly, it takes really intense radiation to cause radiation sickness, and short term doses cause relatively moderate risk of cancer).

It's mostly just a big expense. It's a lot of things we obviously know how to do, which are individually extremely expensive, put together on a very large scale. We didn't and don't have the technology to do it affordably. It took a very big, very expensive rocket that had to be specially developed, with special production and launch facilities.

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

>>6936969
Lifetime expenditures on NASA are around $850 billion. Less than a trillion. Lifetime. That much money is a drop in the bucket and certainly not the major issue keeping us from sending living humans past low earth orbit.

Here's another example of that painted backdrop, by way of frontscreen projection.

>>6936991
okay so if you're saying the moon was a studio set (lights, backdrop, etc) WHY would NASA risk it by using such obvious and basic filming/stage techniques?

>>6937000
Why would NASA have the original transmissions displayed on a monitor and re-shot by studio TV cameras for their "live" broadcast? They were trying to cover their tracks even at the time.

The techniques they were using were top of the line for the time. Whoever directed the landings was very intelligent and meticulous.

>>6937000
because at the time, they were state of the art filming techniques that were only available to hollywood and governments of top countries

a fake on such a large scale would be completely beyond the abilities of the general public, and take government effort that had never been done before, the idea would never even occur to most people

this wasnt 2014 when every 12 year old can pirate a copy of photoshop and shoop his crush's face into porn, this shit was really the absolute peak of video fabrication up to the time and photo manipulation was only done by hollywood kikes and propagandists, same thing i guess

>>6931603

DAE FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE LOL

>>6937012
>implying slow scan was compatible with NTSC

>>6936991
>Less than a trillion. Lifetime. That much money is a drop in the bucket
A trillion dollars isn't a "drop in the bucket", it's a trillion dollars. It's over $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA. NASA has generally been getting in the neighborhood of 1% of the federal budget, and it shot up to nearly 5% during the Apollo Program. That's a lot of money.

And you have to consider what you're getting for that money. This isn't something like having roads, or feeding the poor, or protecting the country from invaders. This is, "Oh hey, that's something neat to hear about, I guess." It's basically America's hobby.

People don't like to be taxed, especially for things that don't benefit them. There was a lot of criticism of the Apollo Program spending as heartless and irresponsible, when that money could have been spent on social programs and infrastructure. Ultimately, NASA was turned into a pork center. Kennedy saw it as a heroic enterprise, but Nixon saw it as a way to give people good jobs and funnel money to important corporations, and Nixon's view is the one that has prevailed in American government ever since.

Putting a man on the moon isn't too hard, it's too expensive, especially after it has been done once. The first time, there were bragging rights. You plant a flag, pick up some rocks, and everyone is impressed. But to keep doing it, you need more of a reason. And the system they built was ONLY good for planting a flag and bringing back some rocks, and it wasn't going to get any cheaper as they kept using it. It wasn't designed to be economical.

What do you expect? They'd keep spending 2-5% of the federal budget indefinitely, trying to make the moon a pincushion of flags through the oil crisis, going off the gold standard, through war and panic and recession, just keep stupidly repeating the same expensive stunt?

Whatever they were going to do, it didn't make sense to simply continue the moon landings.

>>6937121
Another thing that happened was the divergence of ICBM technology from orbital launch technology.

The early emphasis in nuclear weapon design was on increasing power, even if it meant very large bombs that needed to be carried on huge aircraft or truly titanic rockets.

The Apollo Program was announced in the same year that the Tsar Bomba was demonstrated. Big rockets seemed important. And what better way to demonstrate your superior mastery of big rockets than to build the biggest rocket and put men on the moon with it?

Just as Apollo was becoming successful, MIRV technology was becoming recognized as superior. The emphasis in nuclear weapon design was now on compactness and efficient use of nuclear materials, in smaller, well-distributed charges. Large nuclear weapons were recognized as inefficient, and large rockets were not needed. In fact, one modest-sized rocket could easily carry multiple warheads. Huge rockets became entirely irrelevant to warfare.

And that's what really killed the space race. ICBMs and SLBMs reached maturity. There was no more progress to make with them, so no need to demonstrate progress.

Space Shuttle was always a worthless expensive POS.

>>6937121
>when that money could have been spent on social programs and infrastructure

Lets be honest. The military wanted more weapons. We spend 10 times on the military what we spend on "social programs and infrastructure"

>>6936667
>And yet in the 60's we were able to *wirelessly* send a live video feed from a different cosmic object with no hiccups, on the first try?
Well, yes. It was one signal that went from moon to earth. They used some radio telescope to do that. And don't compare ESPN with that, that's just silly.

>People keep replying to the conspiratard

>>6937121
>A trillion dollars isn't a "drop in the bucket", it's a trillion dollars.
That's a trillion dollars over the lifetime of NASA. Compare that to our yearly GDP, or our national debt, or how much money the Federal Reserve printed and gave to the banks in 2008.

>Putting a man on the moon isn't too hard, it's too expensive
I just can't imagine the sheer ego of some kid typing onto a computer that "putting a man on the moon isn't too hard", back before microprocessors were even invented.

>>6937342

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

For these /sci/ kids who don't believe anything until they watch something about it on a screen.

>>6937996
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Apparently_identical_backgrounds_in_Apollo_15_photographs_taken_at_different_locations

>>6938008
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Apparently_identical_backgrounds_in_Apollo_15_photographs_taken_at_different_locations
I've read all of wikipedia's pages on this subject. I doubt most apollo believers have.

If that response is sufficient to you, I will take that as proof that you are not really looking for the truth. That's just NASA approved handwaving; you can tell they are throwing every concept they have at it, while not following any of those concepts to their conclusions. Everywhere you look in the apollo missions, you get NASA handwaving any problems away. As I mentioned earlier, there's a special coincidence explaining every oddity, except you can't apply that same coincidence anywhere else.

It was just the 60s and cowboy gumption and MacGyver innovation is all they needed. Every single space program since then has just been staffed with people who aren't manly men from the 60s. That explains why, after the apollo missions, pretty much every space agency completely gave up. That's why, outside of the apollo missions, no living humans have ever gone past low earth orbit. Because we just aren't the type of manly men they had back in the 60s.

>>6938008
For example of the handwaving, they mention parallax, and then handwave away any problems with the pictures as being due to parallax.

But if they actually wanted to study and analyze the parallax of the pictures, they'd end up proving that they weren't on the moon.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

But that's apollo believers for you: they just need a fancy sounding word and the implication that you're stupid if you don't understand. They don't want to look into anything beyond the couple minutes it takes to assure themselves that they were right all along.

Pic related. A stereopair AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122 after optical transformations and overlaying a distortion grid on the remote landscape. Official distance to the slope of Rima is indicated as being not less than 1,500 metres and the value based on parallax – 50 metres (error not more than 60%).

The distance to the opposite slope of the Rima Hadley is 50 metres. The foot of the mountain and the Apennines can be clearly seen. Undoubtedly, this is a projected image on to a screen taken by ‘astronauts’ (AS15-82-11121 and AS15-82-11122). The actual length of the Rima Hadley on the Moon is actually 135 kms, the width is about 1.2 kms, and the depth ~370 metres.

>>6937950
It's incredible what people are willing to believe just to feel special. Life must be boring.

>>6935892
I need more tinfoil after reading your post.

>>6938041
Here you go then. Apparently tinfoil is all you need to land on the moon.

>>6935936
They did not lose the blueprints, they were never released because they were classified

>>6935665
>Because when we go learn and research more, we find out that the crazy moon hoaxers are crazy, wrong, and stupid, but when we point this out, you don't acknowledge it, and you pretend that we haven't learned and researched more.
This is an amazing point that I didn't realize earlier. I just googled "moon landing hoax" and you have to go through pages and pages of results to find one website actually claiming the hoax side. There are dozens of websites that appear first that will "debunk" whichever strawmen they want, and then even more crazy websites that will attempt to associate anyone questioning with crazy, long before you get to any calm and rational skepticism. This is an excellent scrubbing of google's search results and exactly the same thing you see when you search for 9/11 conspiracy theories nowadays. What a chilling example of the propaganda machine and the collaboration of private industry with federal government.

But ultimately, I think it helps my point. If you think you've done your due diligence in researching more by scanning through a few google results, then you might just be someone who's happier with their ignorance than with the truth.

Pic related, before anyone tries to claim I'm just ranting about more crazy when it comes to the federal government and major data providers. Definitely not a boring world.

Saturn V is so damn sexy! I prefer it.

>Oh, all you conspiracy faggots, fuck off, make your own thread. \inb4 ponies landed on the moon before human did.

>>6938069
try searching for "tiananmen square" or "tiananmen square protests 1989" on google.cn...

>>6938138
China got into the space level of the propaganda game with their recent unmanned lunar rovers. This is something that doesn't appear in the western American media bubble.

Does anyone believe this picture is real, and on the moon? Is there someone that will defend that? It looks like a loving replication of the apollo photos, complete with a front screen projection and pitch black background. I think it helps make the hoax look much clearer.

>>6929935
Every year over 6 gorillion unarmed black teenagers shoot themselves after witnessing racial hatred on /POL/. Reblog and upvote this tweet if you stand with Ben Garrison against racism and bigotry.

CluckCluckCluckCluckCluckCluckCLUCK
ORIGINAL CASTLE DO NOT STEAL

───────────█▄█▄█▄█▄█
█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█▐███████▌█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█▄█
█░█████████▐█████┼█▌██┼██████████████
██░████████▐████▄██▌████████┼█┼█▄████
██████░████▐████░██▌█████████████████
████┼██░█░█▐█████▄█▌██████▄█┼███░████
█┼█████████▐███████▌█░███████████┼███
█┼█████████▐███░███▌███▄█┼█████┼█┼███
█████┼█████▐███████▌█░███┼██████┼████
███████████▐█┼██┼██▌█▄███████████████
██▄████████▐███▄█▄█▌███┼█████████┼███
████▄██┼███▐███░███▌█████████████████

>>6938181
>d-d-damage c-control

>>6938179
>It looks like a loving replication of the apollo photos, complete with a front screen projection and pitch black background. I think it helps make the hoax look much clearer.
Well I can't see it. Also, the "pitch black background" is absolutely obvious. Try the following if you don't believe me: Make a few photos during a bright summer's day and write down the aperture, iso and exposure time. Now wait until it's night and try to photograph the stars with those same settings. Exactly: You will see absolutely nothing. Actually, photographing the stars is pretty damn hard. They are really small and really dim.

But I know, this will be ignored so the tower of bullshit you build inside your head does not collapse.

The amount of dumb in this thread is reaching astronomical heights. I believe we walked on the mun because it's possible with 60s technology.

>>6938197
I've heard the arguments before, and they sound like special pleading. It should be extremely bright on the moon, due to having no atmosphere. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that although the moon has a relatively low albedo, it reflects so much light at night that it seems like a spotlight in the sky.

I can definitely see an argument being made that it's so bright that any attempt to "image" it by our current exposure techniques would wash out all other visible detail. Instead we see extremely subtle visible detail in everything, as if the lighting is "just perfect" for eyes that have evolved to work within an atmosphere, and cameras that have only ever been tested in atmosphere previously.

But your argument stems around experiments that can be done on Earth, in an atmosphere. There is no atmosphere to reflect and scatter all that incoming light on the moon, to reduce it to a level that wouldn't blind us and fry our skin. And without that atmospheric layer of scattered light (the reason you see blue when look up during the day), there is nothing to block out the light from the stars. And yet we don't see any stars, whatsoever. Not any bright ones, not any dim ones. Completely pitch black.

Everything else is well-lit and framed, perfectly exposed and in focus, when these photos were taken from cameras that were strapped to these astronauts' chests with no way of adjusting any of those settings as necessary for each image. It doesn't add up when you look at the forest instead of just the special pleading trees.

>>6938197
>>6938213
Is this real to you? Are you admitting that China, which claims they did this in 2013, has a better space program than America?

>>6929935
Both performed their intended functions well enough. The Saturn V was more of a marvel in that it could send a lunar lander to the moon using 1960s technology and the Space Shuttle was more practical. Both have their charms in different ways and should be remembered fondly.

More important is that we build launch vehicles that eclipse both of them for the modern age and beyond.

>>6938224
lol is that legit? looks kinda fake

>>6938225
You can do the math. The Saturn V was a perfect fit for its mission. Also, we have a fuckton of moonrock they brought back.
Anyway you fucktards won't be convinced until you can go yourself see the appollo lansites on the moon. So why do you even bother?

>>6938228
If that looks fake to you, then I've got news for you...

maybe you should read the thread.

>>6938234
>Also, we have a fuckton of moonrock they brought back.
Like this guy, who didn't read when this was addressed here (>>6935814 >>6935819).

>Anyway you fucktards won't be convinced until you can go yourself see the appollo lansites on the moon. So why do you even bother?
>You atheists won't be convinced of heaven until you die. So why do you even bother?

>>6938238
Am I wrong? If a mission to the moon happened tomorrow, you'd call it CGI. The only way you're gonna believe we went to the Moon is if you step on it yourself.

>>6938234
I did not deny that we went to the moon.

>>6938276
sorry didn't click the right post
was meant for
>>6938224

>>6938238
Well I suppose its because I havent heard about it before now. Did some research and yeah now I see its legit

>>6938250
If a mission to the moon happened tomorrow, it would be CGI. There are many engineering problems we haven't solved when it comes to surviving in space, much less traveling that far, much less landing in unknown conditions, much less launching off the surface of unknown conditions, much less traveling that far back.

You sound like the type of person who would be convinced by a video and uninterested in any of the science data, much less any of the technical specifications. Do you think Gravity is proof Sandra Bullock is an astronaut?

Pic related, from official NASA footage. Personally I think these special effects are dated now.

>>6938217
>can definitely see an argument being made that it's so bright that any attempt to "image" it by our current exposure techniques would wash out all other visible detail. Instead we see extremely subtle visible detail in everything, as if the lighting is "just perfect" for eyes that have evolved to work within an atmosphere, and cameras that have only ever been tested in atmosphere previously.
That makes no sense. The surface of the moon is just as bright as the earth on a bright day. And if you had any idea about photography, you'd know that you usually make superb photos in bright environments. Note that the cameras used medium format which are widely known for their quality and resolution. Building opitcs for vacuum makes no substantial difference or at least it's nothing that's particularly hard to correct.

>There is no atmosphere to reflect and scatter all that incoming light on the moon, to reduce it to a level that wouldn't blind us and fry our skin.
You are just assuming things that simply are not true. The atmosphere is basically transparent. There is no significant reduction of intensity in the visible spectrum.

>And yet we don't see any stars, whatsoever. Not any bright ones, not any dim ones. Completely pitch black.
I already explained to you why that is, they are simply way too dim. Go out and try to photograph the stars with 1/1000s exposure time. I know you won't, because that would keep you from believing what you want to believe.

>Everything else is well-lit and framed, perfectly exposed and in focus
It's not a difficult task to adjust the cameras appropriately before. You know how bright the moon's surface is, you know the sensitivity of the film used. The focus is not really a problem, you just a high aperture, f/16 or something, because it's very bright anyway. It's not like the field of focus varies a lot, so any adjustment is unnecessary.

>>6938323
>The surface of the moon is just as bright as the earth on a bright day.
False, there is no atmosphere on the moon to protect from the sun. If you were white, you might know this more intimately, as just going to a higher altitude will get you sunburned faster.

>The atmosphere is basically transparent.
False. Look at the blue sky.

>Go out and try to photograph the stars with 1/1000s exposure time. I know you won't, because ...
Because that would prove nothing about how light behaves when there is no atmosphere.

>It's not a difficult task...
Apollo believers are always claiming all the scientific miracles of the moon landings were not difficult. It's just amazing.

Anyways, let's get back to some more visual evidence, that no one wants to discuss. Here's another great example of those painted NASA props. Just keep looking at all the pictures, you'll notice it soon enough.

>>6938329
>False, there is no atmosphere on the moon to protect from the sun. If you were white, you might know this more intimately, as just going to a higher altitude will get you sunburned faster.
That's UV light. It's outside of the visible spectrum.

>False. Look at the blue sky.
That's just a few percent that's lost. It's the same order of magnitude, no surprises. I don't even understand what your claim that too much brightness causes bad photographs is based on. It's exactly the opposite, every photographer knows that.

>Because that would prove nothing about how light behaves when there is no atmosphere.
Then choke on your ignorance.

>Apollo believers are always claiming all the scientific miracles of the moon landings were not difficult. It's just amazing.
Well it isn't. Do you honestly believe that calculating the optimal aperture and exposure time for a known film under known conditions is harder than the calculations needed to even start a rocket? You are deluded if you think this. It's a pathetically simple task in comparison.

> that no one wants to discuss
The problem is that YOU don't seem to discuss anything. All you do is pulling ridiculous scientific "facts" from your ass and ignoring everything else that's well established and let's be honest, absolutely plausible.

>>6938343
>That's UV light. It's outside of the visible spectrum.
Still something that is partially absorbed and reflected by the atmosphere.

>That's just a few percent that's lost.
Enough to block out the light from stars during the day.

>Do you honestly believe that calculating the optimal aperture and exposure time for a known film under known conditions is harder than the calculations needed to even start a rocket?
>under known conditions
They weren't known conditions before we had landed on the moon. I still think they aren't known conditions. But you're dismissing a lot of arguments you don't understand in that direction. There's a lot more than just adjusting for the light required to get decent photos out of analog cameras, adjustments that simply could not be made on the moon in space suits. There is a whole range of photographs showing different lighting and distance situations, and they all appear to be caught by the same set of magic settings you think they could prepare on earth. It's just more NASA special pleading. Just like a religion, you have to remember all the responses to defend your dogma.

I'm fairly confident at this point that you came into the thread fairly late, and didn't read any of my prior posts. It's the same pattern, over and over. The problem with believing in false science is it will lead to killing your curiosity, as you are trained to deliver certain responses and avoid certain thoughts, just like a religion. I think this is proven over and over when I discuss the apollo missions with people, and they don't really want to look into anything, they just want to insult anyone who would dare question their beliefs.

>>6938304
you know that's a bad recording of a screen right? Real life doesn't have subtitles.

>>6938354
The bad recording of the screen still can't hide the fact that the foreground and background don't match. There is a strobing effect noticeable on the background that doesn't affect the LEM.

It's another good point against NASA anyway, that we can reiterate here because it keeps being ignored. “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”

Almost like they know people would be looking at it in detail one day.

>>6938350
>Still something that is partially absorbed and reflected by the atmosphere.
So? Who cares? What's the point?

>Enough to block out the light from stars during the day.
So? You just carefully ignored a few arguments of mine, especially that stars are VERY VERY dim, no matter whether you are on the moon, mars or pluto. Good job!

>They weren't known conditions before we had landed on the moon.
Well, YES, they are very well known. We see the moon every fucking day. Do you know that it's super simple to measure the brightness of the full moon and calculate how bright the surface of the moon is? No you don't, because you have obviously no idea what scientists are actually doing.

>There's a lot more than just adjusting for the light required to get decent photos out of analog cameras
No. No, there's not. There's aperture and exposure time. There's also ISO but you can't change this. Note that you have to develop analog films. The process used for this is very robust, especially for color films. There's not much that can go wrong.

By the way, you again ignored every other argument that doesn't fit your ways. Nicely done, really convincing.

So, now you have exactly no argument left. The problem is that you can't discuss any of this, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. You believe anything that you want to believe.

>>6938365
I'm confident any intelligent person could read our exchange and see that you haven't posted any full arguments, but you've claimed victory over and over amidst many insults. You've ignored detail and handwaved away any problems, just like NASA trained you.

Here's some more discussion, since you're not posting any, for everyone else who's actually looking for more instead of useless back and forths:

Let's talk about these absurd space suits for a minute.

The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.

The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

These space suits also provided virtually no protection against radiation. An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

>>6938370
Whatever, you're a lost cause. Believe whatever makes you happy.

>>6938399
I really think you should address those words to yourself. I've made many great points throughout this thread, and they continue to be ignored.

What could I do to re-ignite your curiosity? How could I get you to look into this some more, to actually study the space you pretend to love?

Why are even the denizens of /sci/ all of that same mindset, where they know everything they need to know? Where anything that's important would have been delivered to them, either in school or on TV?

How can I get you to stop being so passive with your knowledge? How naive can you be to think that everything you were told in school was true?

This thread is full of compelling evidence that should cause you to do a double take. Even pretty pictures aren't enough to stimulate you? Seems like what I would expect of a group of people who worshipped a television myth.

>>6938370
>The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
If you bothered to research anything about spacesuit design , this is the first thing you would have found. Suits have a special layered design to mitigate just that effect. The reason a flexible material under pressure becomes unbendable is because it takes work to increase or decrease the volume. The suit solves this problem by using layers of fabric to create pockets called "gores" around each joint. When the joint is moved, reducing the interior volume, the gore opens up, increasing the volume. Thus moving a joint does not change the total volume under pressure and no exra work needs to be done.

>The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.
Also laughably easy to answer. The outside of the suit is not the only layer and is not even pressurized. Only the bladder and restraint layers (the restraint layer contains the gores) are pressurized and they are completely sealed.

>The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
Why?

>These space suits also provided virtually no protection against radiation. An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.
Solar flares are rare and the astronauts were only outside the magnetosphere for a few days.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/moon_hoax_FAQ.html

>>6936050
Let's talk about those lunar hops for a minute. Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth in a studio.

Pic related. Look at this astronaut for a moment. As he gets up, his body rotates around a center of gravity very high up on his body. Physically impossible to have that center of gravity, unless he was currently being partially suspended by wires. Which would explain the strange movements we see on the lunar surface (well, sometimes, they're not always consistent, see: >>6936344).

>>6938407
All of your points have been refuted thousands of times. You're not original, you're just spewing ignorance that you could have debunked yourself with a few seconds of googling.

>>6933471
It would be a very small possibility that the tower would fall straight down.

>>6938425
>The suit solves this problem by using layers of fabric to create pockets called "gores" around each joint. When the joint is moved, reducing the interior volume, the gore opens up, increasing the volume. Thus moving a joint does not change the total volume under pressure and no exra work needs to be done.
More science magic, more technology and materials that NASA claimed to have in the 60s that would be a new innovation if we had that today. Just look up any pressure suits we use today.

You show in your response that you aren't even aware of the method that NASA claims the suits implemented to cool the astronauts. If you had really looked into it, you would see it was more proof of a hoax. They didn't have the amount of water they needed to perform that cooling; they didn't expel any visible water from the suits either. The idea that those suits provided for all the astronauts' life support needs is a farce that can only be maintained by ignoring the evidence, by believing that "all points have been refuted thousands of times" and telling yourself you don't need to worry about it. You can only maintain your belief in these missions by not looking any further, just like you've ignored the entire thread.

I can't wait to see you wikipedia a response or find a way to tell me that this is all beneath you, you don't need to be bothered with thinking or understanding, you know what's true end of story.

>>6938427
>Let's talk about those lunar hops for a minute. Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
Have you ever jumped in a space suit on Earth? Idiot.

>Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity,
Impossible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

>As he gets up, his body rotates around a center of gravity very high up on his body.
What are you talking about?

>>6935538
Ok, i looked for the line. Needs better eyes than mine, i could 'imagine' one being there. Never really doubted the landings. Still dont actually.

But there is one thing... the landscape striates from left to right. With no wind and no water it shouldnt do that.

>>6938438
>More science magic, more technology and materials that NASA claimed to have in the 60s that would be a new innovation if we had that today. Just look up any pressure suits we use today.
We've had pressure suits since at least the 1880s. They all use the same principle that moving a joint should not change the volume of the suit. It's very elementary.

>They didn't have the amount of water they needed to perform that cooling; they didn't expel any visible water from the suits either.
How much water would they need and why would the unit need to expel water?

>>6938466
>They all use the same principle that moving a joint should not change the volume of the suit.
Which is why real life pressure suits, and not hollywood space magic, have ball and socket joints made out of a solid material for articulation.

>How much water would they need and why would the unit need to expel water?
They would need to expel water as a means of achieving cooling in a vaccuum. Please go research the suits, it's clear you haven't even looked into them. Please take this place as proof that you don't know all you need to know, and that maybe you weren't told everything. I'm confident that if you look into this for a significant amount of time, you'll be able to ferret out the truth.

>>6938464
He's almost right, there is a line. But it's not a line from a background, it's the edge of the hill they're standing on to take the panoramic picture.

>>6938478
>Which is why real life pressure suits, and not hollywood space magic, have ball and socket joints made out of a solid material for articulation.
Only hard shell suits. Do you think high altitude pilots wear hard shell suits?

>They would need to expel water as a means of achieving cooling in a vaccuum.
Yeah I'm asking you why. So far you haven't answered, you just keep repeating that expelling water is required.

>>6938407
>How can I get you to stop being so passive with your knowledge? How naive can you be to think that everything you were told in school was true?
I'm a physicist and I have lots of reasons to believe what I think I know is true. Whereas you are simply believing everything you see in some youtube videos made by a bunch of nutcases. Nothing you say is any way consistent and none of it has anything to do with scientific method. You are just claiming stuff backed by some kind of naive intuition.

>>6938486
>Do you think high altitude pilots wear hard shell suits?
High altitude, still within the atmosphere and magnetosphere, cannot be compared with the vacuum of space on the moon.

>Yeah I'm asking you why. So far you haven't answered, you just keep repeating that expelling water is required.
In a vacuum, there is nowhere for the excess heat that we normally produce from our bodies to go. The equipment that would be used to maintain pressure in the suit would also create heat, which would build up and need to be exhausted somehow in order to maintain stable life sustaining temperatures. They claim they used water as a medium for expelling the excess heat, but then they didn't have the amount of water they'd need, nor the evidence that they were expelling water for heat loss.

These are things about space you'd learn if you claimed to love it as much as you do, if you were really a scientist.

But when I run into apollo believers that insult me, I can be pretty sure they've never really looked into any of the science, and it doesn't take long to prove that.

>>6938494
>High altitude, still within the atmosphere and magnetosphere, cannot be compared with the vacuum of space on the moon.

Why? Seriously, why exactly? What is the exact difference? Take a calculator and calculate what the consequences would be and why this makes the space suit impossible. If you can't, you have no right to even talk about this.

You don't know this, right? What is he gonna say now? Maybe show another piece of "evidence" or doubt science as taught in school even though the device he's typing that bullshit on is based on this science?

>>6938494
>High altitude, still within the atmosphere and magnetosphere, cannot be compared with the vacuum of space on the moon.
High altitude flights where the atmosphere is thin to nonexistent require the same features as a spacesuit. In fact NASA's first space suit was simply a modified version of a Navy high pressure flight suit. Creases and pockets in fabric does not require advanced technology. You're seriously delusional if you can't even admit such obvious points just because you want to hold onto your idiotic conspiracy theory.

>In a vacuum, there is nowhere for the excess heat that we normally produce from our bodies to go. The equipment that would be used to maintain pressure in the suit would also create heat, which would build up and need to be exhausted somehow in order to maintain stable life sustaining temperatures. They claim they used water as a medium for expelling the excess heat, but then they didn't have the amount of water they'd need, nor the evidence that they were expelling water for heat loss.
Again, you fail to explain why such a system would need to expel water. It makes much more sense that the unit simply cools the water and then recirculates it. But thank you for continuously showing you have no idea what you're talking about and are too deluded to use an ounce of skepticism on your own beliefs.

>>6938513
>even though the device he's typing that bullshit on is based on this science?
The thing I'm typing on isn't based on "this" science (TM). They didn't have microprocessors in the 1960s, and not only that, but it was IBM that was pioneering this technology at the time, while NASA's phony one's complement apollo guidance computer was never pursued. In fact, looking into the apollo guidance computer, from a computer science perspective, will tell you all you need to know about NASA.

>It makes much more sense that the unit simply cools the water and then recirculates it.
Not at all, and you should stop here, as you are really making a fool of yourself. There needs to be a medium to transfer the heat into in space, recirculating the water will just heat it up from the pump's work. You're showing vast ignorance of even what NASA will claim was going on in these space suits, and getting angrier and angrier instead of admitting your ignorance and taking it as motivation to go learn something.

In NASA's independent space suit, the heat is ultimately transferred to a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source). Due to the extremely low pressure in space, the heated ice sublimates directly to water vapor, which is then vented away from the suit. This is what NASA will actually claim as the cooling system for the spacesuits (notice how hard it is to find any information on these suits, just like all the miraculous apollo technology). The problem is that they didn't have enough water to expel to cope with all the excess heat from organics, electronics, and unfiltered solar radiation, and not only that, but there's no evidence of them expelling any such water vapor from their suits at all. It's just a comical farce.

Shuttle. It represents the hope to have actual spaceships in the future. Saturn V was neat, but it's a step of the past, one that we have left behind.

>>6938549
This guy probably also believes that the earth has no way to radiate heat off to space and kept getting nothing but hotter during its entire lifespan of getting hit by solar rays.

>>6938549
They also didn't have the technology to play back more than a minute of film in slow motion, yet somehow they played over two hours on TV. So your entire theory is fucking impossible.

BTFO

>>6938549
>The problem is that they didn't have enough water to expel to cope with all the excess heat from organics, electronics, and unfiltered solar radiation, and not only that, but there's no evidence of them expelling any such water vapor from their suits at all
There's also no evidence of the wires you claim were suspending the astronauts. I would think that would be easier to see than water vapor, which is all around you right now yet can't be seen. Retard.

>>6938558
That was a good job addressing all my points instead of ignoring everything and attacking a strawman.

>>6938564
>They couldn't fake it, but they could do it!
Come on now, it's almost 2015, we can't replicate the miracles of the apollo missions. We both know they couldn't do it for real back then just like we can't do it for real now, and we both know that when I ask you to give me 2 hours of continuous footage from the apollo missions you'll insult me and never be heard from again, because 2 hours of continuous footage doesn't exist anymore.

It was a pretty story back then but now we have decades of proof that it didn't inspire a new generation of pioneers and innovators, it created passive entertainment junkies who can't separate reality from fantasy.

>>6938581
I was addressing the "heat" issue. Vacuum is shitty at transferring heat, but it's not impossible, heat radiation is a thing, that's how termal vision works. And space makes up for its shitty heat transfer by being REALLY cold.

As for solar radiation, please note how shiny and packed in metal everything was. That's a great way to reflect electromagnetic radiation of all kinds.

In space the issue isn't to cool things. It's to keep them warm.

>>6938581
>and we both know that when I ask you to give me 2 hours of continuous footage from the apollo missions you'll insult me and never be heard from again, because 2 hours of continuous footage doesn't exist anymore.
Hundreds of millions of people saw it, good luck denying it retard. Your theory is demonstrably impossible. You lose, good day sir.

>>6938581
>Come on now, it's almost 2015, we can't replicate the miracles of the apollo missions.
Of course we could, we just don't want to fund it anymore.

>Vacuum is shitty at transferring heat, but it's not impossible, heat radiation is a thing, that's how termal vision works.

False. That's how thermal vision inside an atmosphere works. A vacuum is a lack of anything, a lack of any medium for heat to be transferred through.

>In space the issue isn't to cool things. It's to keep them warm.
False, when we're talking about the surface of the moon. Even NASA talks about keeping the astronauts cool in their independent spacesuits.

>>6938564
>>6938590
>BTFO
>You lose
You kids think this is just a game. You're looking for any reason to throw it all out with the bathwater and go back to not thinking. You aren't showing curiosity or a desire to learn; even when faced with examples of your ignorance you continue to blather on. You've clearly ignored many of my points, with constant ridicule.

You're alive in the information age, with more information at your fingertips than any of your ancestors had access to in their whole lifetimes. And yet you know everything you need to know, and you constantly refuse to look at anything that might be boring or strange. You're entertainment junkies looking for the next super stimuli fix.

Why do you show such ignorance and a lack of curiosity?

>>6938616
>A vacuum is a lack of anything, a lack of any medium for heat to be transferred through.
>solar rays can't reach the earth, there's no medium

>>6938616
>Even NASA talks about keeping the astronauts cool in their independent spacesuits.
When they're in full sunlight without the protective reflective layers of the craft they come in.

>>6938616
>You kids think this is just a game. You're looking for any reason to throw it all out with the bathwater and go back to not thinking. You aren't showing curiosity or a desire to learn; even when faced with examples of your ignorance you continue to blather on. You've clearly ignored many of my points, with constant ridicule.
I'm not hearing any argument for how NASA magically had continuous slow motion playback 40 years ago, just a bunch of bullshit. Why do you show such ignorance and gullibility?

>>6938619
>>solar rays can't reach the earth, there's no medium
Are they waves or particles?

>>6938627
Both. They're electromagnetic radiation.

Like, you know, thermal radiation.

>>6936991
I gotta say, that thrust nozzle is too close to the ground.

>>6938626
>I'm not hearing any argument for how NASA magically had continuous slow motion playback 40 years ago, just a bunch of bullshit. Why do you show such ignorance and gullibility?
We have continuous slow motion playback today (not that you've provided any evidence of this continuous slow motion playback you believe in).

You know what we still don't have today? Any way of landing living humans on the moon, much less getting them past low earth orbit. Source: research every space agency.

Your only defense is in ignorance, in hiding the truth, in closing your eyes to the world and squelching your curiosity.

>>6938629
Then they are the medium.

Are you claiming the astronauts were emitting electromagnetic radiation into a vacuum, and this was sufficient to cool them? That would be just as hilarious as the other thread where someone claimed they were cooling themselves with infrared radiation, because they too had never looked into any of the actual science behind the apollo claims.

>>6938636
>We have continuous slow motion playback today (not that you've provided any evidence of this continuous slow motion playback you believe in).
But not 40 years ago. Do you understand how time works? Show me a single instance of slow motion playback from the 60s longer than 30 seconds. You can't.

>You know what we still don't have today? Any way of landing living humans on the moon, much less getting them past low earth orbit. Source: research every space agency.
Why would anyone have a lunar lander if they don't plan to land on the moon? Shut the fuck up.

>Your only defense is in ignorance, in hiding the truth, in closing your eyes to the world and squelching your curiosity.
Projection. We've already shown you're wrong. You have no argument. Therefore the only one being ignorant is you.

>>6938636
>We have continuous slow motion playback today (not that you've provided any evidence of this continuous slow motion playback you believe in).
So what you say is that NASA could just magically invent slow motion playback, but fails to do a primitive task such as calculating a proper aperture and exposure time for photos on the moon.

See, that's what I mean by consistency. You just bend it like you need it. Nothing makes any sense.

>>6938641
>Are you claiming the astronauts were emitting electromagnetic radiation into a vacuum
Yes. Everything that's >0K does.
>and this was sufficient to cool them?
While they were in full sunlight? Probably not. Otherwise? Yes.
>That would be just as hilarious as the other thread where someone claimed they were cooling themselves with infrared radiation
You are now aware that infrared radiation is also thermal radiation emitted by a body less than ~500C.

>>6938649
>So what you say is that NASA could just magically invent slow motion playback, but fails to do a primitive task such as calculating a proper aperture and exposure time for photos on the moon.
No, but this is a great example of trying to put words in my mouth again. You guys can strawman all you want, and then claim victory but it doesn't fool me and I think there are smart enough people out there to see through this. I've done a decent job in this thread presenting information.

Slow motion technology that you claim they didn't have (while also providing no proof of this continuous slow motion uninterrupted footage) was only marginally better than public technology at the time. It is completely feasible that the government could have had that technology. When you watch a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey, released a year before the first moon landing, it's clear that Hollywood already had many of the same techniques and none of that footage was outside of their ability.

Not only that, but the realistic technology claim is completely backwards. You believe we had the technology to send humans past low earth orbit back then, when we've never done anything like that since. And that's just getting slightly away from our planet, a few hundred miles, not the 237,000 miles to the moon. That's not covering any of the other amazing technicial miracles that the apollo missions gave us, perfect consumption for a TV audience.

Face it, you didn't even read the whole thread. It doesn't really matter if you lie to me, but you should care if you're lying to yourself.

>>6933520
WTC 7 had a design which pushed all of its core columns to the outside of the building. When the North(?) tower fell it carves a 15 story hole in one side. When you look at the actual collapse you can see the penthouse portion collapse first, there are recreations of how this would have happened exactly that take a look at all of the columns in the building in a 3d view, and it IS consistent with that. Watch it for yourself.

Or wait, let me guess, the NIST is just some government puppet? Yeah let's just disregard what they say and straw man out the ass.

>durr you trust the gubment youre a sheep moron lol

>>6938651
>>Are you claiming the astronauts were emitting electromagnetic radiation into a vacuum
>Yes. Everything that's >0K does.
>>and this was sufficient to cool them?
>While they were in full sunlight? Probably not. Otherwise? Yes.
Even NASA disagrees with you, but you won't be bothered to look into this. You've been guessing and assuming and rationalizing the whole time, even when you were shown to be wrong.

>>6938682
If you actually want to dispute thermal radiation being a thing, then I don't know what to tell you anymore.

>>6938689
No, that's not what I'm saying and not the point.

You continue to misconstrue what I say. You will backpedal constantly until there's nothing but smoke.

I'm not disputing whether or not thermal radiation from blackbodies is a thing. I'm disputing whether that phenomenon was enough to keep the astronauts cool on the lunar surface. Neither I nor NASA think that was enough; it is why NASA claims they had this ice sublimation system for the cooling coils in their spacesuits.

I can't wait to see how you'll get this one wrong and then immediately claim that you've debunked all the arguments I've made in this thread.

>>6938304
Just for interest, because i am old. I remember those shots, and thinking, 'hell they are going fast. I would be scared of crashing'... I am thinking the same thing now, and wondering how they got rid of that gorward momentum.

>>6938304
>There are many engineering problems we haven't solved when it comes to surviving in space
We have a fucking space station.
>much less traveling that far
We landed shit on a comet and on mars.
>much less landing in unknown conditions
See above.
> much less launching off the surface of unknown conditions
We can, you know, LOOK at the moon. From earth. Or from low orbit. It's not unknown at all.

>>6938698
They claim they fired all their thrusters at just the right time and proportion to counter all that momentum and drift down to the surface of an unknown celestial body, without microprocessors, and they got it right the first time and every time after that. You can scroll up this thread to find pictures where there is no landing crater from such a propulsive landing.

Nowadays, Elon Musk can't propulsively land a craft on Earth, with advanced super computers and 50 years more advanced physics knowledge.

Pic related, from when they were trying to test the lander on Earth. They never could get it to work on Earth, but remember, it worked flawlessly on the Moon the first time and every time after that.

>>6938674
You can buy the DVD with the full 143 minutes. This library has a clip of the EVA that's over an hour long: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/video11.html

2001 did not have people walking around in slow motion in a continuous clip. Show me a slo mo clip from the 60s greater than a minute or get the fuck out.

>>6938709
Obviously, landing something in an atmosphere with wind and all and landing something in low gravity without an atmosphere is the same thing.
Hence why the lander when returning landed in water.

>>6938706
The space station is still in our atmosphere, still protected by our magnetosphere. Completely different environment from deep space.

>We landed shit on a comet and on mars.
That was another publicity stunt, or did you miss tshirt-gate?

>>6938710
I don't even think you looked at your own link. Every clip there is under 10 minutes, except for one, which was filmed from a camera at 1fps. This does not match your claims of hours of uninterrupted slow motion footage, as if that one "impossibility" can even compare to the many miracles of the apollo program.

>>6938733
>The space station is still in our atmosphere
It really isn't.
>still protected by our magnetosphere
As if that matters.
>Completely different environment from deep space.
Not significantly. Apply foil to shield.
>That was another publicity stunt, or did you miss tshirt-gate?
I'm sorry, what? It proves that we can land things on things that are significantly further away than the moon, and significantly harder to land on.

>>6938738
You can think being inside our atmosphere and magnetosphere don't matter when it comes to discussing protecting organics and electronics in space, but it just proves your ignorance.

>It proves that we can land things on things that are significantly further away than the moon
If what the ESA released to the public (a couple pictures) is proof to you that they accomplished what they claim, then I claim that you don't know what proof is.

Pic related, proof we can put astronauts on the moon.

>>6938733
>This does not match your claims of hours of uninterrupted slow motion footage, as if that one "impossibility" can even compare to the many miracles of the apollo program.
YOU'RE the one claiming that this is slow motion footage you fucking retard. Try to keep up. This clip shows that they were on the moon for over an hour, and it shows Armstrong using a video camera to send the the video that was broadcast on TV. You can buy that broadcast online.from numerous sources, not to mention that hundreds of millions of people saw it with their own eyes. If you want proof of the continuous tape, go buy it. Again, show us the technology or get the fuck out, retard.

>>6938747
>being inside our atmosphere
It isn't.
If it was, it'd already have crashed.
>don't matter when it comes to discussing protecting organics and electronics in space,
It's called radiation shielding and since we're not talking about gamma rays, it's not fucking hard.
>If what the ESA released to the public (a couple pictures) is proof to you that they accomplished what they claim
Yes, all the current ESA scientists and everyone else checking the data lied, too.

Come on, this is getting ridicolous.

>>6938427

what is that thing dropping on the "floor" at the end of the gif? isn't it too fast?

>>6938758
You've obviously never researched each space agency individually.

Here, this is from Japan's space agency, JAXA. They claim this is from their SELENE probe, a probe they launched to orbit the moon. Just like other space agencies, getting data out of them is difficult, after they released this image they didn't release much more at all.

They claim they took the data from their lunar probe and put it into a 3D modelling program to image the surface of the moon. They claim this helps corroborate the apollo missions. NASA will claim this as third party proof of the moon landings.

To me, it looks like a half-assed attempt to be a part of this "space hoax" club. China did much better with their recent Chang'e missions. But I could make a mockup of this in a few hours in any 3d modelling program. This isn't proof of anything, except of how gullible they think we are.

>>6935814
>implying lunar samples from the moon are the same as on earth
>dat fusion crust doe
>dem microfractures doe

I have found this interesting. Read it all. Will be back later

>>6938765
>Just like other space agencies, getting data out of them is difficult, after they released this image they didn't release much more at all.
So tell me, what kind of data would convince you?

Would you even know what to do with the data?

>>6938765
>To me, it looks like a half-assed attempt to be a part of this "space hoax" club. China did much better with their recent Chang'e missions. But I could make a mockup of this in a few hours in any 3d modelling program. This isn't proof of anything, except of how gullible they think we are.
That's part of your problem. To you everything looks like it backs you up when it really doesn't. But you can't actually judge that because you have no means to judge the data you have in any scientific manner. You already know what the result is supposed to be, you don't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

>>6938857
You did a good job of avoiding every argument I made. I doubt you even know much about the Vietnam war that these landings were meant to take the focus from.

Returning then to the question of why such a ruse would be perpetrated, we must transport ourselves back to the year 1969. Richard Nixon has just been inaugurated as our brand new president, and his ascension to the throne is in part due to his promises to the American people that he will disengage from the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. In truth, however, only 25,000 of the 540,000 U.S. troops then deployed will be brought home. This ruse is, therefore, transparently thin and it will buy the new president little time. To make matters worse, on July 14th 1969, Francis Reitemeyer is granted Conscientious Objector status on the basis of a petition his attorney has filed which explicitly details the training and instruction he has just received in assassination and torture techniques in conjunction with his assignment to the CIA’s Phoenix Program. With these documents entering the public domain, the full horrors of the war are beginning to emerge.

Just in time to save the day, however, Apollo 11 blasts off on July 16th on its allegedly historic mission, and – with the entire nation enthralled – four days later the Eagle purportedly makes its landing on the pristine lunar surface. Vietnam is temporarily forgotten as America swells with patriotic pride for having beaten the Evil Empire to the Moon. There is little time to worry about the brutality of war when Neil is taking that “one giant leap for mankind.”

I wonder if you're similarly ignoring the Senate Intelligence Committee Torture Report that Senator Feinstein released today. I doubt even a manned Mars mission could cover up that shame, but it looks like today's audience won't even notice it.

>>6938877
Actually, I really think that faking the moon landing would have been a good idea back in the days. The problem with that idea is that there's simply no actual evidence other than some weird feeling you have about some images. Everything else you stated so far has been debunked.

ITT: trying this hard to convince a retard

>people STILL replying to the conspiratard

>>6938427
Your gif there debunks your whole conspiracy bullshit. The trajectories those dust particles are taking when the astronauts kick up dust are only capable in low gravity. No amount of slow motion will recreate that.

I just want to build my models

>>6939106
Did you not see how fast the object falls off the astronaut?

I can't wait for you to claim that it fell that fast because there was no atmosphere. But the dust didn't fall fast enough, and that proves it was on the moon. It's always ridiculous mental gymnastics with believers.

I've posted so much slam dunk proof of shenanigans in this thread. Don't focus on any one part. Take it all in. Don't take anything I've said in this thread at face value. Research everything. Learn more.

Would I tell you to go research and learn more if I was lying to you?

>>6939119
Of course it's not because of a lack of atmosphere because an object like that will not be affected by air much in the first place. You apparently don't know the difference between an object simply falling down in low gravity, like the famous feather, and the dust which has has been imparted speed and thus will travel longer distances in low gravity. I mean, it's simple physics.

>>6939136
>I mean, it's simple physics.
I can't tell you the number of times I hear apollo believers claim all the science of the moon landings is simple and if you don't understand it you're an idiot. As if space is just math and we know everything there is to know about math.

Meanwhile I regularly catch them in huge ignorance about space in general, like the anon above who thought you need heating more than cooling on the moon's surface.

In just eight short years, starting essentially from scratch, we designed, built, tested, refined and perfected every piece of technology required to put men on the Moon, and we did it so well in that brief period of time that by July of 1969, every cog in the wheel performed nearly flawlessly. And yet now, with a half-century of space exploration now under our belts, and with all the necessary technology long perfected, NASA advises us that it would take twice as long to put a man on the Moon, and that deadline has been moved back indefinitely multiple times.

The 1960s were just an awesome time to be an American and especially to be an American astronaut … well, except for the three guys (Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee) who were burned alive during a test procedure in the command module of what was to be the Apollo 1 rocket. But they were troublemakers anyway who probably wouldn’t have wanted to go along with the Moon landing fable. (Look into Grissom's testimony; look into his son's testimony). And then there was that Thomas Baron guy who was a safety inspector for NASA and who delivered highly critical testimony and a 1,500-page report to Congress, only to then be killed a week later. That report seems to have been sucked into the same Black Hole that swallowed up all the other Apollo evidence.

>>6939119
>Don't focus on any one part. Take it all in. Don't take anything I've said in this thread at face value. Research everything. Learn more.
>Would I tell you to go research and learn more if I was lying to you?

Holy shit stop Fucking saying this. Your arguments have been an incoherent mess of cherry picking, Texas sharpshooter rambling.

This has to be trolling right? If not then this thread is the definition of Poes law.

>>6939238
Personally I am a fan of the theory that space is really, really dangerous. There's radiation and micro-meteorites everywhere which one would expect would necessitate shielding. NASA has never bothered with any radiation or physical shielding other than heat tiles for re-entry so really anything outside of near earth orbit should be riddled with radiation and possibly holes.

Not one astronaut reported any symptoms of radiation poisoning and none of the lunar astronauts died young of cancer although having passed through the Van Allen belts unshielded.

NASA has proven themselves time and time again to be manufacturing fraudulent images (pic related of Michael Collins' "spacewalk"). I highly recommend people look at NASA's images with a few principles in mind, firstly stars in an image would allow very precise locations to be derived and would have been difficult to fake in the early days, it may be a coincidence but stars never appear in lunar images or images of or from the ISS. The second is depth of field, can continents and clouds be in focus as well as close equipment such as the shuttle? The depth of field in many of their images that are not taken with a CCD are completely impossible.

The difficulty of using archaic rocket technology and using no shielding whatsoever to reach the moon is often overlooked, if you have the billions of dollars executing a water tight hoax would have been easier and possibly profitable. Hoaxing seems to be NASA's modus operandi, with the funding they have they could pull off just about anything. Let's not forget they started off as a warehouse of closet Nazis.

There was a movie produced in early Nazi Germany made to convince the Fuhrer that a lunar program was a good idea, essentially launching people via large V2 style rockets to explore space. The movie eerily mimics the NASA launches which isn't surprising considering Von Braun's involvement in its development and his subsequent role at NASA.

>>6939148
All of this irrelevant bullshit just to distract from the point that dust doesn't fall like that on Earth. You're pathetic.

>>6939289
You're digging, ignoring every other point, and ending with insults. Your behavior shows you aren't interested in learning more, or finding the truth, but in winning some debate game.

There is nothing about that dust that makes it impossible for that footage to have been created on earth. If that dust is proof to you of the moon landings, then I will hold that as evidence that you don't know what proof is.

But I'll use this opportunity to link some more apollo footage, and ask again: Greatest achievement of humanity, or after school special? (Just what exactly moved the camera, and how?)

Every year, the hesitation on that question gets longer. In a decade, I won't even have to make an argument, just link some apollo pictures and we'll all laugh about how people used to believe in that.

>>6939310
>in a decade
not that guy, but say its 2030 and we finally realize the Apollo was fake, etc. 60 YEARS later. Will it even matter? Hell, even if we agree in 2020, early space travel will be such a boring history topic that I dont think anyone would even care sadly.

>>6934553
saturn v one bad ass motherfucker!
7.5 MILLION POUNDS OF THRUST

Titan II anyone?

>>6939338
“In regard to propaganda the early advocates of universal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democracies — the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
– Aldous Huxley, Preface to A Brave New World

“It is the emergence of mass media which makes possible the use of propaganda techniques on a societal scale. The orchestration of press, radio and television to create a continuous, lasting and total environment renders the influence of propaganda virtually unnoticed precisely because it creates a constant environment. Mass media provides the essential link between the individual and the demands of the technological society.”
– Jacques Ellul

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
– Thomas Jefferson

>>6939496
The Saturn V is fucking huge..

>>6939505
It has a viewfinder?

>>6939106
This, there's really nothing you can do on this planet to recreate such an effect (in the 60s, in hours of continuous footage). But how do you explain that to someone as uneducated as that nutjob?

I have enjoyed this thread. Great game trying to spot OTHER errors in the pics/clips. Thanks to BOTH the main debators. I see a lot of evidence for fakery, not much against.

Excellent thread.

Did they really land on the Moon
or did NASA publish forged images?

In logic, OR includes AND.

>>6929935
>Is either one more iconic than the other?

I immediately recognize the one on the left, not the one on the right.

>>6934388
>We were all shocked when Challenger hit one of the WTC's twin towers, but nobody expected Columbia to come barrelling in and take out the other.

Well PLAYED sir, I am giggling like a fool in the middle of the office.

>>6934467
>If you actually cared about science, you'd research the apollo missions more than you already have.

No, because I am a biologist.

But I'm sure you have some conspiracy theory about Big Pharma I should be researching if I "cared about science" instead of the insulin medication improvements I am currently working on.

>>6935953
>In middle school, you were lied to about this. How hard is it to lie to middle schoolers?

Ah yes, the optics I confirmed for myself doing experiments in Europe were lies.

I know they were lies because they were identical to the optics my American friends use, and those were propaganda for the moon landing.

My teacher, in Europe, teaching me experiments to "confirm" the propaganda, must be in on it.

>>6935970
>because I happen to specialise in optoelectronics, you fucking retard

>>6940046
>Ah yes, the optics I confirmed for myself doing experiments in Europe were lies.

>We landed on the moon!
>We didn't! Look at the photo! It shouldn't look like that!
>Optics work like that!
>Do not! Propaganda Optics!

... test test test.

>Turns out you're full of shit, optics work like that.

This is why I do so love Based /Sci/entific Methodology.

So good at sifting bullshit from truth.

>>6939148
>apollo believers claim all the science of the moon landings is simple and if you don't understand it you're an idiot
They are right, and you're an idiot.

>>6936667
>Yeah, even today with wired internet connections, streaming video (whether something live like a sporting event or a recorded tv show) is an unreliable nightmare, even when the streaming source is a billion dollar company like ESPN.

...

Electronics engineer here.

It is way fucking easier to do a one-way no-handshake analog radio-signal containing audio- and video-data than it is to do a two-way handshake over-the-internet signal containing much higher resolution audio and video.

Seriously. Like, much easier, you don't even know.

>>6937229
>Another thing that happened was the divergence of ICBM technology from orbital launch technology.

I have long believed the Apollo mission to be a propaganda stunt, but a propaganda stunt that did, truly, put men on the moon.

It wasn't directed at US citizens, it was directed at the Politburo.

You see, delivering nuclear weapons with aeroplanes was fucking risky - the Soviets were very good at building Anti-Air Artillery. We needed a new way.

So: "We can land a rocket on the fucking MOON," is what we were saying: "So you better believe we can land one in the center of the Red Square. Your AAA won't save you now."

If the landing was faked, the Russians would never have bought it.

>>6937996

>>6938616
>>Vacuum is shitty at transferring heat, but it's not impossible, heat radiation is a thing, that's how termal vision works.
>False. That's how thermal vision inside an atmosphere works. A vacuum is a lack of anything, a lack of any medium for heat to be transferred through.

...

But that's wrong, you retard. Radiated heat is a thing.

Cannot tell if moon denier, or shill pretending to be moon denier, but badly, so as to discredit moon denying.

>>6935946
>>6935916

I'm sorry to interrupt such quality shitposting and lunar landing denial from two people that both aren't experts in the field of lighting.

But they actually used a new lighting engine on a virtual render of some of the scenes and found the results are very comparable with the photos, debunking the argument that "lighting isn't realistic huur duur"

http://www.geek.com/games/nvidia-recreates-the-lunar-landing-to-prove-it-wasnt-fake-1605006/

tl;dr the astronaut suits themselves reflect a lot of light, they are essentially like those diffusing screens photographers use when they take portraits.

they actually used a new lighting engine on a virtual render of some of the scenes and found the results are very comparable with the photos, debunking the argument that "lighting isn't realistic huur duur"

http://www.geek.com/games/nvidia-recreates-the-lunar-landing-to-prove-it-wasnt-fake-1605006/

tl;dr the astronaut suits themselves reflect a lot of light, they are essentially like those diffusing screens photographers use when they take portraits.

Anyhow can we lay this bullshit lunar lighting "discussion" to rest?

>>6935579
Here, better image with kg rather than bus's, also rocket configuration

Interesting thread. RIP

>>6939688
No, the hasselblad cameras that the astronauts had strapped to their chest had no viewfinders. They had no way at all to "preview" the photos they were taking, no way at all to adjust the focus or aperture, no way at all to tell if the lighting was decent or if they even had anything in frame. And yet when you look through the photos we got from the missions, they seem to be directed by a photography expert. Everything is well framed, well lit, well exposed, in focus, etc, with no way of either changing the settings on the cameras or verifying that they were producing good results, just analog cameras strapped to their chests. This point was ignored by the believers, and mocked when they did not understand what I was saying.

>>6939707
I asked the other anon to produce this hours of continuous footage, and they could not. I doubt you can either. Any clip over 15 minutes from the apollo missions that still survives today was taken by their 1fps camera, which holds no information one way or another about slow motion or realistic movement on the moon. This point was ignored by the believers, and mocked when they did not understand what I was saying.

>>6940079
The russians were faking their own space program. You would know this, if you had looked into this on your own. The russians had no means of tracking the apollo missions at the time. In fact, as soon as the Russians got a strong enough radar to verify the apollo missions, we stopped launching men to the moon. But even more amazing is that you've set up a scenario in your mind where another nation is your enemy, and yet they would swoop in and save you from your own government? Besides showing extreme naivete about what was actually going on geopolitically, it reduces nation states to cartoonish simplistic characters. Just how where the Russians going to tell you you were being lied to? On the internet? Find a way to talk to some Russians today; they're pretty confident the moon landings were faked.

>>6940118
I never claimed radiated heat wasn't a thing. In fact, if you followed that line of discussion, you would see where I had explained this to the other anon who tried to misunderstand what I was saying in just the same way you are now, and how they failed to respond there. Here: >>6938641 . If you took the idea that the astronauts were radiating heat into the vacuum of space, and this effect was enough to cool them, to any astrophysicist who had studied this, they would laugh at you out of the room. Believer arguments continue to revolve around finding a way to misunderstand what I say and then tell me that's wrong, but you guys don't stay around long enough to listen to me correct you.

>>6940106
You ignored all discussion of parallax here >>6938037, just as I claimed would happen. It's parallax and such when it's convenient for NASA, but when we actually stereoscopically analyze the parallax of the images, they don't stand up to scrutiny.

It's all insincere hit and run tactics. You guys don't engage with my arguments, you make an implication (because you're too insecure to stand up for your own argument) and then you pile on the insults. Look at the end of this thread. Any reasonable and calm explanations? No, just ridiculous insults and putting words in my mouth.

These are the actions of people who are afraid of the truth, not people who are trying to find it.

>>6940132
Come on anon. NVIDIA recreated a scene in a 3d modelling program, and they managed to recreate it just how they wanted it. That's proof to you? Are you that gullible? Do you also believe in NIST's modeling of the towers, even though they refuse to release their data inputs (might jeopardize national security), and even though their modelled collapse doesn't match the witnessed collapse at all? (>>6933471)


Science, just like everything else in this propagandized world, isn't free from politics. So /sci/, do you care about science, or do you care about politics?

>>6940219
Thank you for posting that, I'm saving it to my collection. I think it does a great job of showing the perspective of just how fantastic the claims of the Saturn V rocket were, just how much of an incredible leap in technology that rocket supposedly was. That payload is enormous compared to anything we could manage previously, and it still monumentally dwarfs anything we have done since or are planning to do.

It's just too bad all the blueprints and everything needed to recreate that Saturn V have been lost to history. It's just too bad we can't deliver anywhere near that payload anymore, and we've basically had to start over from scratch at the drawing board. And none of our attempts today can come close to that payload.

I think this is a good example of the "magic technology" that we see all over the apollo missions, how they created and perfected technology for the moon landings in less than a decade, and how that technology they used is still better than anything we have or can make today.

The apollo missions have a shelf-life, because they make falsifiable claims about science, and every year that passes where our actual space development in the 21st century can't match something from the 1960s, it becomes that much more obvious.

>>6940567
The politics fund the science. So no they dont care, they need the jobs.

>>6941556
So sad considering the number of engineers I know working for defense contractors, who have spent their whole careers overworked and ready to be laid off at any moment, being shuttled from one contract to the next hoping when the music stops they'll still have an income.

Even selling out to the military industrial complex doesn't guarantee you a job these days.