/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9414479
No.

>>9414479
no because we're about to go back to the moon to do shit
it would serve no purpose to say it was faked, when it clearly was real

>>9414479
Yes because some parents teach their kids that in home school now anyway.

You realise 7 billion people is like a shit load of people right? It happens plenty.

>>9414479
My physics and history teachers told this to my class

>>9414479
Yes.

>>9414479
Only you can look up at the moon and see the rovers and tracks and shit they left behind. Like it is literally right up there. LOOK!

>>9414479
But that wouldn't even make sense. Soviets stopped before the moon landing, actually they had no interest in a manned moon mission. They won the space race in all regards anyway.

It wouldn't be faked to bankrupt the soviets, faked to win the last leg of a popular culture battle. The world was really excited by it, whilst few cared about the innumerable space achievements besides initially getting a man into space and the moon landing.

>>9414580
My college professor said that the footage shown on the news when he was a kid was drastically different from what is shown nowadays. He said there was wind blowing the flag.

>>9414479
That's fucking retarded though.

>>9414748
My entire family saw it except me. No flag blowing for them.

>>9414748
Did he see it moving or was it just not hanging down next to the pole? Because they put a rod through the top part so it looked like it was blowing/to make it look better.

Wires or moon's gravity? You decide!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP2GdhmPWXo

>>9414739
>actually they had no interest in a manned moon mission.
What the fuck were they blowing up all those N1s for then?

>>9414820
Why does everything look weird like it was sped up or something?

>>9414863
because it has been sped up by a brainlet conspiracy theorist who thinks the actual footage was slowed down to look like low gravity

The american government would never lie to us.

>>9415076

They don't even have to be good at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

>>9414874
If you slow it back down by 0.75% it looks to be moving at the normal speed, but it doesn't make the video any more believable.

>>9414749
That's not proof of anything.

>>9414863
The frame-rate was very low. No data-compression then. Also it had to be put through a conversion to make it compatible with the TV sets of that day.

What IS inexcusable is that they've lost the tapes of the "raw" transmission.

>>9414479
You really think the Soviets were that stupid? They never landed men because Korolev died, there was constant in-fighting between different agencies, and they could only spend a fraction of what the Americans did. They just didn't have the resources to spare.

>>9414748
you shouldn't trust ANYONE'S memory from a decade ago

>>9414479
What was the point of that in the movie anyway? To convince kids to be farmers instead of astronauts? Seems retarded

>>9416876
I imagined the idea was "Don't dream. Don't get any wild ideas about saving the world through technology. Just be content with your wretched life on the farm until you starve."

The director wanted a bleak dystopia to show how important the hero's mission was. If THAT had been the most egregious thing about the movie, I'd have felt a lot better after seeing it.

I have an encyclopedia on CD from the 90's that shows gifs of Jupiter. Animated gifs was cutting edge in the 90's. Anyway, the encyclopedia said it was a video of NASA shooting nukes into Jupiter in an attempt to turn it into a 2nd star. This was an encyclopedia saying this!! You could see an object enter Jupiter and then a giant black spot growing larger and larger. Entire thing was black n white and super grainy. To this day I don't know what to believe.

>>9416925
I'm guessing this is what you saw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiLNxZbpP20
Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter in 1994.
Who made the encyclopedia? Mad Magazine or the National Lampoon.
Someone was playing a joke.

>>9416933

Holy shit is that real? Seems like a comedy skit.

>>9414479
>children in school are taught that the moon
>landing was faked to bankrupt the soviets
They are now taught that a billion dollars was thrown
down the SDI rabbit-hole for that same purpose.

>>9416721
>That's not proof of anything

Actually, it is. The space programs are rather cheap compared to the defence budgets of both countries. The USA would know this and realize such a program wouldn't even put a dent in USSR's GPD. Thus, their reasoning wouldn't have anything to do with it being financial. It'd be about one-upmanship, which it was.

>>9417213
Shoemaker-Levy is real.
I was watching the impact through a telescope. I THINK I saw something. The first impacts were on the "far side" of Jupiter, near the limb, but the fireball ballooned past the edge of the planet. Professional astronomers DEFINITELY observed it.
Some of the fragments left (temporary) smudges bigger than Earth, visible as the planet rotated them into view.

You can still read PopSci articles "If this had happened on Earth..." Those are somewhat exaggerated. Earth's escape velocity is only a fraction of Jupiter's, so the energy-release would have been MUCH less. Still would have been a very bad day for Humanity. The sight was terrifying enough that the US Congress funded a program to search for dangerous objects. If spotted early enough, we MIGHT be able to do something constructive.

NASA bombing Jupiter is a joke.

>>9416872
Han shot first and Greedo didn't even shoot at all in the first Star Wars when it was released in the theater. I know, because I saw it in the theater with my family and that one scene scared me because the good guys were going to hire a stone cold killer and I was scared for them. That's something I can trust to remember. A flag on the moon not waving because there's no air would also be something I'd remember because it'd be pretty off from the normal. Which is why I believe my older family members when they say it didn't wave, since they watched it happen.

>>9414512
Yes, this time we go for real.

>>9414512
Hi nasa!!! How's that SLS coming along?

>>9414479
In the recent past, Hollywood teaches children that you can survive falling into a black hole, and you will find a space library inside it.

>>9414749
You don't understand history if this is your argument.

The moon-landing was real, but the footage was faked. Or that's what I'm told.

>>9420100
You are correct, sir.

>>9414479
In the near future, children in school will be taught that the Holocaust was real. Could this happen?

>>9418612
that's ok, because the nearest known black hole is 27,000 light years away. I mean it's probably more dangerous that hollywood teaches that you can dive safely into pit of gold coins.

>>9414820
>2:05
shit, i had doubts if moon landing was fake or not, but now i'm 100% sure it's hoax.

>>9414479
Let's imagine it was faked.
That means that the rocket show-of-force project that is called NASA was simply a paper tiger, even when V2 projects that were introductory proofs of ICBM's had developed 25 years prior. You are telling me that the USA designed an entire program because rocketry technology was not feasible, and couldn't be advance in 25 years?
Other assumptions, specifically flat-earth and such, have to be made, and continuously delved and alluded to in order to propagate this stuff.
Plus, there are much easier ways of bankrupting the soviet union, specifically by saying you are going to develop a little thing called SDI, or "star wars" which attempted to establish a new power item to redefine who was, technologically, the most powerful superpower? SDI simply requires much less in terms of fuel, as well as understandings of orbital mechanics. It's Sputnik with a fucking bigass laser on it, an expensive and powerful laser. Denying the mechanics and feasibility of sputnik, as well as lasers, must be done before you can claim that NASA and the moon landings were a project to bankrupt the soviet union. The soviets were already going to explode, the system was not going to last technological advancement and the efficiency of natural and non-organised (on a nation level) production means. The ideal period for communism as existed in the soviet union was 1890-1960. Even then, the societal turmoil as it existed meant that even if you have a soviet society, it is too costly in terms of economic restarting and societal rebuilding that is simply easier to retain the capitalistic and free market system for the 70 year period.

nobody is going to read this but oh well

>>9414479
I have no evidence that the moon landing was fake, but there is PLE-HENTY of evidence that NASA is faking footage among others

>>9414479
Could what happen? People lying to kids? Uh yeah. All the time

>>9420214
Oh you mean how some "counter weight" keeps the astronaut from even trouching his knees to the ground, yet later in this same video the astronaut is able to fall on his hands and knees and needs his buddy to help him back up?

>>9420199
we actually don't know if this is dangerous or not. Have YOU had a room of gold coins to swim in? I don't think so bitch.

>>9416925
I wonder if you're conflating two things.
As other anons pointed out you might be remembering the comets that hit jupiter in the 90's.
However, as an aficionado of tinfoil hats of all sizes there was also a weird instance where a strange black dot showed up on jupiter that we didn't understand.
Richard C. Hoagland, of "Monuments of Mars" fame speculated that some probe that was sent into Jupiter's atmosphere at the end of the mission. It had a nuclear battery and he speculated that it could have reached a crush depth in jupiter's incredible atmosphere pressure and start a nuclear chain reaction.
Just throwing that out there.

>>9420672
As you noted, Hoagland promoted the Face on Mars.
That's not PROOF that anything he says is to be dismissed immediately -- but that's the way to bet.
Pressure has no effect on nuclei until it reaches values WAY above what exists even at Jovian core pressures. Even when hydrogen turns metallic, all that's happening is that the electron-cloud overlap and some of the electrons become free to move.
You obviously recognize "tinfoil" when you see it, but repeating such BS in a place like isn't wise. It just encourages the brainlets.

>>9414479
No. Children will be taught that the evil whities took food money from minorities and spent it on wasteful rocket toys.

>>9420527

The counter weight is controlled by people off set. You see in some of the clips the "astronauts" get pulled up off their feet while standing.

The technology to fake the moon landing did not exist in the late 1960s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

>>9421156
No, you see whatever you want to see.

>>9416491
I used to believe in the moon landings but now my belief is genuinely shaken. Upon a closer look, that does look fake as fuck.

>>9414479

>Interstellar
>blight is killing all the crops
>gummint lies to kids to steer them into farming
>but...less crops means need for less farmers, especially since it's shown earlier in the movie that agricultural equipment combines are automated, so even less farmers than now, really

I really hope Nolan sticks to historical epics...

>>9420550
Why don't you try diving into a pile of pebbles or sand?

>>9421181

Guy's a moron. They didn't have the technology to stage it, then goes on to explain how it's possible to stage it.

As if they couldn't film in slow motion but could live stream from 230,000 miles away without a TV transmitter.

>>9421182

no u

>>9421223
Protip: 230000 miles with a small S band transmitter is nothing when you have a perfect line of sight.

>>9420527
because different scenes filmed with different setup?
if he is not fighting the counter weight then why he is jumping like a retard around that wrench

>>9421195
That's right. Steel is heavier than feathers.

>>9414479
>In the near future, children in school are taught that the moon landing was faked to bankrupt the soviets. Could this happen?

they are already pushing that flat earth bullshit... so, that looks like it's their goal.

Moon landing was faked and directed by Stanley Kubrick. All the retards here that believe the moon landing was legitimate are suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>9422612

Except flat Earth will never take off just because the Government pushes it. They need rap stars on board. Wait..

>>9414580
Which country is this??

>>9416872
I 100% guarantee you I also saw the flag blowing footage. To this day I don't understand what the fuck was up with that.

>>9421187
It looks that way because it's been sped up. Other than that it's just what you'd expect from moving around in a 0.16 g environment

>>9422567
Because he can't bend at the waist or knees.

But no, I guess it is far more likely that some invisible alien knocked the hammer out of his hand and started pulling him up into the air every time he attempted to pick it back up.

>>9421223
They literally could not have prerecorded it, they would have to have done so on video which didn't have even a fraction of the necessary storage capacity at the time or else do it on film and somehow not leave a single identifiable film grain, speck of dust or errant hair while also flawlessly switching tape decks with no trace, and then do so again (except with triple the amount of tape) five more times. All without anyone involved with filming and developing hundreds of thousands of feet of film ever spilling the beans.

>>9420725
I wasn't advocating Hoagland's idea, just trying to connect the dots for anon. When i hear "NASA nukes Jupiter" that's what sifts to the top of the memory pile (that may have been the title of the article).
If memory serves the phenomenon he was trying to explain away looked like something straight from the climax of 2010, (when the monolith starts to turn jupiter into a sun.)
Also, tangentially related but Hoagland had a handful of pages on his old website that BTFO out of most arguments about the moon landing being a hoax. Sometimes you need to fight tinfoil with tinfoil... But you're right about bringing it up here, I genuinely try to be lessof a shitposter on /sci/.

>>9420249
>there is PLE-HENTY of evidence that NASA is faking footage among others
There really isn't. There's a handful of quacks on youtube who think that pointing at blury marks on old videos is proof of a grand conspiracy.

>>9421223
>As if they couldn't film in slow motion
The Moon landing broadcast was video, not film. They could film in slow motion. but there wasn't the capability to produce a slow-motion video of that length.

>>9422723
>I 100% guarantee you I also saw the flag blowing footage.
I 100% guarantee you didn't. Memory is really unreliable for things like this.

>>9422629
>Moon landing was faked and directed by Stanley Kubrick
He filmed it on location, because he didn't like NASA's set.