/sci/ - Science & Math

Why don't you prove it to yourself and stop going to /x/

>>7426172
we don't have tangible facts. Unless you work at NASA and have enough clearance to check for yourself of course.

>>7426172
Faking all that evidence would take more effort and more new technology than the launch itself.

>>7426190
>we don't have tangible facts. Unless you work at NASA and have enough clearance to check for yourself of course.

One Google Search for "Evidence of moon landings" would be enough to tell you why your post is absolutely and completely wrong.

With a powerful enough telescope, can't you see the landing sites?

The furthest you could feasibly stretch it is the initial landing was faked, but all the subsequent ones were real.

>>7426172
quit now, less you get bamboozled again

>>7426229
I'm sorry how am I supposed to believe anything anyone says ?

Tangible means I see something with my eyes beyond reasonable doubt.

Showing me pictures and "he said she said" won't convince me.

But then again I don't care.

>>7426172
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

That ought to do it

>>7426253

>Tangible means I see something with my eyes

tan·gi·ble
ˈtanjəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: tangible

1.
perceptible by touch.

noun
noun: tangible; plural noun: tangibles

1.
a thing that is perceptible by touch.

>>7426253
Anything that you see with your own eyes is a government hologram.You can only know that everything is a lie. They're watching you

>>7426253
>Tangible means I see something with my eyes beyond reasonable doubt.
quit now, less you get bamboozled again

>>7426243
no the spot is too tiny it's impossible

Why does anyone actually pay credence to this obvious psyop meme? You'd have to be a real ignoramus to buy into it and that's just approaching the logic, let alone the science. People landed on the moon. Deal with it.

>>7426172

Well, I suppose the beam from the lasers rangings bounce on the bare surface of the moon without the help of a mirror, right ?

>>7426260
/thread

>>7426172
>hi /sci/ I need you to prove that the moon landing was real.

hi /troll/ I need you to prove that this thread is real.

If it wasn't real then the Chinese would of said so. Instead they saw several white flags (merican flags bleached by the sun) so they couldn't say shit.

>>7426253

>babby's first existential brainfart

>>7426172
>it was a hoax
That would be the shock of the century. It would trigger a tribal psychosis beyond all measure and probably the next world war. Some tales are simply too big to fail, the scientific requirement of independent verification be damned.

"They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth's atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean." -- apollozero.com

>too stupid and or uneducated to understand how the apollo program was possible
>therefore it wasn't possible

Internet discourse.

we have no definitive proof, just a mountain of circumstantial evidence so large that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss it

it's important to remember that because there's always going to be a way to explain around any one given piece of evidence.

you bring up the laser bouncing mirrors? they'll respond that NASA could have dropped a payload with an unmanned mission on the moon, or a later mission could have put them there

they'll always shift the argument about what actually happened without realizing it, just to protect their paradigm from individual pieces of evidence

the goal in debating the moon landings is not to give them small rocks of evidence one at a time, but to somehow convince them to look at the whole mountain. it's a paradigm shift for them and those are notoriously difficult to achieve

>>7426311
>"They then supposedly blasted off the surface of the moon, docked with the third man going around the moon at over 4000 miles per hour, and made it 240,000 miles back to Earth. They re-entered Earth's atmosphere going 25,000 mph, but parachutes assured a safe landing in the ocean." -- apollozero.com
All seems perfectly reasonable so I don't see the problem here.

>>7426260
NOPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zhZqiSe5c

>>7426370
>we have no definitive proof, just a mountain of circumstantial evidence so large that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to dismiss it


funnily enough this is the case for UFOs as well

>>7426404
well that depends on what you mean by UFOs. if you mean the ongoing phenomenon of people seeing things in the sky that have no immediate explanation, yes, absolutely the "UFO phenomenon" exists.

the next leap from there to "these are actual alien craft" is unsupported, though

>>7426395
Fucking gay.

>>7426172
Russia never denied any of the moon landings. If it was a hoax both russia and america were actually working together during the cold war to create this hoax. its like believing the cold war didn't happen and everybody was good buddies the whole time.

>>7426395
Jarrah White..the blunder haha!
Why believe what that guy says when he doesnt knows the difference between radiation and radiactive.
For jarrah:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TelJ75pzP4

>>7426297
Not as precise with the mirrors.

>>7426307
Same with the russians during the missions, they didnt say anything. The even launched a Luna probe at the same time of the Apollo 11 mission.

>>7426370
>you bring up the laser bouncing mirrors? they'll respond that NASA could have dropped a payload with an unmanned mission on the moon, or a later mission could have put them there
Thats hypothetical. Prove it

The best evidence would be that the rocks brought by Apollo match the ones from the Luna program by the soviets.

>>7426550
What's hypothetical? My assertion that they might respond that way?

>>7426577
Sorry, Im a bit sleepy. I didnt read the whole comment.

>>7426243
This, why does everyone say the first one was faked and never all the others?

>>7426528
Also this, Russia was breathing down America's neck the whole time. If it was faked they would of picked up on it and happily made that information public.

>>7426641
I remeber when Truman said to Stalin they were working on the manhattan project. Stalin didnt even show a bit of emotion or surprise because he knew it the whole time.

>>7426207
>>7426243
>>7426229
your evidence is not good. for all moon landings.
seems like people just write off and are not informed of what arguments are against the moon landings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106637066
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9bkxbwsc-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1I25JX0HIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsZImxoyc8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyaeHYJaaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG7HjyuDP9w

So do people only believe that the Apollo 11 mission was a fake or do they believe all of them are?

>>7426667
all. >>7426665

>>7426667
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

>>7426172

The problem is they use self-sealing arguments. Any evidence you give them they will declare "faked".

>>7426172
Seeing as you bought it up, this topic has been effectively forced into the dialogue lately. Why? I think It's a diversion, keep people arguing and focused on if we ever went, as opposed to what can be found there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl4fW1bMjtU

Some legit independent documentaries and people collecting their own footage of Selene can be readily verified as showing the same objects and points of interest: In NASA's images, that's highly significant verification from two highly different sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyYto9H85Gw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mloo3kxQfFM

https://www.youtube.com/user/secretnasaman

There's so much going on that there are multiple videos from the ISS and other recent on-going missions where they cut feed suspiciously quick at the sight of lighted objects moving out in space caught on film.


Indeed, sky watch and make observations, film and images a few times during the day or night and you can see for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6stfgcwP4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP2NTQFBQmM

>>7426674
>aulis

Most convincing evidence for me is all the geological findings like the composition of the lunar maria, dating of the crust and time frame of the lunar cataclysm, etc. To know this stuff, we at least had to have sample return missions. Say there was a conspiracy and robots collected those samples, not humans. Is it really that much more of a challenge to put a human onboard the spaceship for 6 days?

I've been reading Rowbotham recently, is earth really round?

>>7426172
I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but it's a nice video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs

>>7426665
>Missing telemetry data
What about all the data that havent been misplaced or overwritten?

>Missing lunar rocks
They are very well documented. Why if they are missing that would imply a hoax?

>No impact crater or dust cloud.
The LM was almost empty when near the ground seconds before the touchdown, so the engine wasnt at full throttle to produce a crater.
There wasnt a dust cloud because there is not atmosphere.

>Wires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=domtyECeabA

>Multiple lights
Where are the multiple shadows then.

>No stars
Too dim to be captured by underexposed cameras

>arguments are against the moon landings.
They are not good. They are made by illiterate idiots and con-mans.

https://youtu.be/D-v_K1k8Se0
We literally can't go into space and come back.

>>7426741

>>7426750
Without anything to push on, how does thrust work in a vacuum?

>>7426761
Conservation of momenta.

Go die in a pit.

>>7426761
Newton third law

>>7426738
we are not talking about taking pictures and not seeing stars.

we are talking about collins, who orbitited the moon while niel and buzz fucked around on the surfece, didnt see any stars.

no stars while in orbit. somethings wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA

>>7426779
Why _exactly_ is that wrong?

>>7426761
lol, a fat fuck doing a experiment with his own air. You dont even know how pressure works get the fuck out.

>>7426785
because collins was orbiting the moon, he wouldve had a good view once he hit the darkside.
but he doesnt remember seeing any stars. then niel gives him a nudge to shut up.

>>7426794
No, please tell us _exactly_ why he should see stars

>>7426794
>misquoting interviews as evidence
>parroting Sibrel

The interview hoaxers love to bring up about Collins is a bit confusing due to the reporter asking a bunch of different questions at once, but its pretty clear Collins was answering the question about seeing stars during solar corona photography.

>>7426794
>Not if the interior lights of the capsule were on because his eyes havent adapted to the dark.

>then niel gives him a nudge to shut up.
Yeah, infront of a lot of cameras, lol.
Retard

Apollo 12's third stage is still up there, and has been imaged and catalogued.

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/what-happened-to-all-the-saturn-v-rocket-stages-140116.htm

As have the landing sites themselves. This whole thread is a troll of trolls. Or idiots. Or lunatics. Dealer's choice.

>>7426838
It's called a meta meme

>>7426838

It's just retards being retards. They believe what they want to believe and nothing you will say can convince them.