/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes.

No.

Maybe

I don't know

>>9550575
I don't think so. I have the original blueprints for the moon lander.

Yes. The difficulty of getting a rocket to the moon in the late 60s is ridiculous.

No its not fake.

ask buzz himself

<---- /x/

Their computers were shittier than my iphone and it sure as hell can't get to the moon.

"The Moon Landing was Fake" "The Earth is Flat"

>>9550575
Buy a telescope and confirm yourself poorfag.

Us never got to the moon, russia did.

>>9550576
>>9550577
>>9550579
>>9550588
Can you repeat the question?

>>9550703
Is The moon landing fake?

>>9550707
You're not the boss of me now

>2018
>Believing the moon landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

You think the moon is real?

>>9550575
You can actually buy a telescope, look at the moon and see for yourself the shit they left lying around, it's still there. Do it.

>>9551132
The government won't let you buy a powerful telescope without a license, because They don't want you to know the truth.

>>9551136

Any private citizens own a powerful enough telescope to see it? No.

>>9551145
they actually left retroreflectors on the moon, which are extremely easy to observe if you know what you're doing, but i'll leave you to your delusions

>>9551154
how do you know the retroreflectors were put there by humans and not dropped by an automated mission

>>9551156
because there's video evidence, photographic evidence and 3rd party evidence

>>9551166
usually people are using the retroreflectors as evidence that the video/photographic evidence are real, though..

>>9551154

What are you 5 years old? People were bouncing lasers off the moon in the early sixties before the moon landings.

>>9551112
>Unimaginably vast amount of paperwork and records of the moon landing
>Literal tons of paperwork about it
>Media coverage from around the globe
>Subsequent missions take photos of the flag and original stuff left on the moon
>Part of the linked video are from subsequent moon landings
>U GUISE IT'S FAKE TOP LEL KEK LOL FAGGOTS!!111!!1!!1!!
Kill yourself flat earther

>>9550575
>the moon landing
>singular

You mean all 6 of them? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

>>9550698
>>9551128
>>9551136
No telescope on Earth can resolve anything left behind on the Moon. Eventually, we may leave something large enough to see with a telescope, but that won't happen for a long time.

>>9551154
This isn't good enough, unfortunately. Those are for lasers not telescopes or photographs and they can be placed with automated means.

>>9551209
There's vast amounts of paperwork on UFOs too

>>9550613
>The difficulty of getting a rocket to the moon in the late 60s is ridiculous
Nah. Getting to the Moon wasn't the hard part. Landing there and getting back was the challange.

>>9551209
>>Unimaginably vast amount of paperwork and records of the moon landing

All telemetry data has been destroyed. All the technology has also been destroyed. Paper work doesn't mean shit.

>Media coverage from around the globe

The moon landing happened I heard it on the radio/saw a blurry black and white image on a 2 inch TV screen.

>Subsequent missions take photos of the flag and original stuff left on the moon

Fake as fuck. Can't believe you're actually fooled by 1960s propaganda, embarrassing.

>>9551228
If you leave the van allen belts radiation will kill you

>>9551239
Uhm, no.

>>9551232
Go back to your pelmeni, Ivan. Give your troll farm a break. You've done hard work.

>>9551255

You got it boss.

I'll leave in this Lunar Module Ascent Stage, a masterful piece of 70s engineering.

>>9551136
Literally false.

>>9551239
Just rocket it through it. You get about as much radiation from that as a long CT scan. At least in an Apollo mission anyway. You could always wrap up everything in more shielding.

>>9551232
>All telemetry data has been destroyed

Reality check: the back up recordings for the live TV broadcast were destroyed.
Not "telemetry". And not worthy keeping around. The data tapes were very expensive and re-used for other projects.

>>9551239
they took a trajectory that avoided the worst parts of the belt and went through quickly

>>9551274
Counter reality check: The raw moon landing footage/recordings were recorded over because there was a "shortage of magnetic tape". I mean come the fuck on!

The telemetry data is gone, the technology is gone, the original footage is gone and we haven't been back since. Nothing to see here folks...

>>9551284
>>9551270
For your sanity I will admit that I was just trolling; I believe in the moon landings.

>>9551290
In the digital age, who the fuck cares about "original" recording medium? I can't imagine people 100 years from now arguing about how the original HDD/SSD used to record Musk's FH car launch where reused for something else later. Can you?

>>9551318

Why would they want to keep the original tapes recorded on the moon, and taken back to earth?

Are you seriously asking that? Hope you're trolling for your sake.

>>9551332
I'm saying that because that is the mentality people had back then. It happened all the time. A shit load of stuff was lost because of that sort of thing.

>>9551290
>The raw moon landing footage/recordings were recorded over
Again: no.
The live feed was converted real time to another format. As a back up they made the recordings in case the conversion failed. It didn't.

>>9551290
>because there was a "shortage of magnetic tape". I mean come the fuck on!
Those tapes were insanely expensive. And what was on them was worthless because by now there were countless copies all over the world.

watch this, then come back and apologize with what you have learned from this pretty educating video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

>>9551380
>Moon-hoaxers ignore one of the biggest pieces of evidence. If the moon landing was faked why did Russia do nothing? This was the middle of the Cold War, showing that America faked the moon landing would have been the KGB's wet dream. If it was faked, why did Russia do nothing?

Because the internet didn't exist back then and now it does so they have Russian troll farms to get western public to lose faith in the government, religions, etc via grass roots operations.

>>9551394
i dont know who you quoted there

>>9551394
how is this even relevant? if russia would have thought it was faked, they would just have said so via their diplomatic channels. and there have been kgb agents in pretty much each position of the moon project, and not even they reported any fakery. heck, even back then at the manhattan project, the most secretive large scale top secret project of its time the project was infiltrated by russian sleeper agents. russia did not find any proof of a moonshot fake of any kind, they just learned that they will lose the race

>>9551380
this is a quite well done video. and I've learned something today

Can't believe this thread is still alive

>>9551380

>Claims the moon missions could not be faked because it'd be too difficult
>Goes on to explain how they could have been faked

If you look at the shitty footage, you're telling me they couldn't have faked that? A fucking ten year old could have made it, what a joke you people are.

This "film maker" may joke about being a paid shill, but he's only doing that because he actually is one. His arguments are piss weak and he lacks conviction. He just has this childish condescension about everything.

>>9551432
It is relevant because that is literally what is happening right now ITT.

>>9551509
>clearly did not understand what the video was about

watch it again, and listen carefully this time. he explained what you would have to pull of in order to fake it. and how grotesquely impossible technology wise this feat would have been for the late 60s, so much that it would have been actually easier to do a moon landing for real

>>9551509
this video has a lot of healthy sarcastic skepticism, clearly, you understood nothing of what was explained

>>9551533
>>9551537

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

>>9551667
>"slow motion" removed

Now they look like cracked out squirrels with jittery hand motions and everything.

>>9551360
to what format was it converted live ?

Keeping it alive

>>9551759
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

>The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format.

>>9551511
sooo...... The moonlandings were real because Russia didn't call out fakery; and the moonlanding hoaxers are fake because they are Russian trolls?

>>9551209
Don't forget the fact that the Russians were also gunning for it, had the ability to receive the transmissions back from the Apollo capsules and would have cried foul if anything was suspect.
That and third party radio observers caught the transmissions too and could triangulate their positions.

There's no doubt they went to the Moon. There is little doubt they landed on the Moon. We have seen the photos from Lunar orbit now showing their tracks still undisturbed on the Moon's surface.

Is that enough to stop the naysayers? No. Is there ever enough to stop the naysayers? No.

Any reasonable suggestion of the moon landings being a hoax has been utterly debunked in recent years by lunar orbiters photographing the landing sites and high res mapping of the surface exactly matching the Apollo footage.

If you want to believe in a hoax at this stage you basically have to step through into full flat earther territory and conclude that the US, China, Japan, Russia and every space agency in the world is part of a grand conspiracy that continues to this day. And of course people who think this way cannot be reasoned with, as everything that contradicts their worldview is dismissed as fake.

So yeah, the debate is essentially over and has been for a while.

>>9552875
>the debat is literally ov-

Not so fast anon! Hear it from me, your good friend that modern space travel is all fakery.
It doesn't mean the earth is flat.

There's actually some good readups into the global space programs in collaboration and the nonexistent private experiments.

>>9551239
What do you think the particle density in the van allen belts is?

>>9552888
I don't think there are any van Allen belts.

>>9552877
please >>>/x/plain

>>9552901
The space programs are the opposite of space travel, they're to keep people from NOT going into space because they think the agencies have it covered.
And if it's all covered then no questions into current physics models need to be questioned.

The rocket's don't work in space. There's only one mode of propulsion that works.

>>9552910
You are the dumbest fuck ever to use a computer.

>>9552915
Yeah, well that's all anyone has to say about anything regarding this stuff.
>You're the big stupid
Okay, well you go put a rocket/satellite/cardboard box up into space, tell me how it works out.

>>9552818
so why were the backup tapes wiped then

>>9551128
Not exactly but you can bounce a laser off of a plate they left on the moon, its a pain to do but can be done for sure.

The probes did land, but human landing probably was fake news.

>>9552937
It's all fake. ALL of it. Except the manufacturing and testing.
I feel for the poor bastards that actually make and code all this shit.

>>9550575
No but your mommas tits are

>>9552933
Why do you make back ups? In case something goes wrong. Right? Well, nothing went wrong. And back then 1 GB of data storage would cost about 1 million dollars.

>>9552982
Why are you jumping through hoops for? You would back it up anyway.

>>9552926
you crowdfund me $100k and I'll put your log of shit in orbit via Cubesat

>>9550684
>Their computers were shittier than my iphone and it sure as hell can't make an atomic bomb

>>9552983
I don't understand what you mean.

>>9552986
That's actually a good point, jokes aside.
If you care enough, go and look into crowdfunded space programs through Kickstarter and whatnot, even for small satellite projects and see the commonality over each crowdfund.

>>9550613
So explain why, you self-proclaimed:
Rocket scientist
Orbital mechanics expert
Mathematician
Physicist
Engineer (aerospace, electrical, mechanical...)
Economist
...
And many more

>>9552995
Well what did they spend, $30 billion on it back then on the first Apollo mission?
What's another few more on some cassettes? Hell ONE backup is probably too little if anything for that scope of a mission.

>>9552999
Don't worry Anon, I'm only a self-proclaimed bullshit artist.

No one understands any of those thing.
>Yes they do just because you don't doesn't mean they don't here's a Wikipedia link

No one understands gravity and the orbital experimental evidences on it is weak.
No one understands orbital patterns or why they're arranged as such.

A rocket to the moon. And then a little rocket to the moon. And then back to the main ship. Then back to Earth. All on the first try.

>>9553001
They made ONE back up. But they needed several tapes to do so.

>>9553017
Right. Anyone else would have made four backups at the least and put them all in some vault somewhere.

>>9553020
It was only to be used as a fail safe for the live TV broadcast. It did NOT contain telemetry or any other important stuff. Once the TV broadcast had been succesful (and countless recordings were made all over the world) the back ups became useless. And a decade later someone re-used the tapes.

>>9552827

>>9552893
Then how will they kill you?

still can't believe this is still going!!!

>>9553113
Not quite.
The format conversion lowered the image quality to what the TV sets of the time could handle.
There's no way to recover what was lost.
If we had the original tapes (I think they were at the ground station in Australia) we could make much better copies today.

>>9553357
Yes that is true.

I don't think they could foresee in the 70s that technology of today could so quickly prove this moon shit was a complete hoax (and a pretty bad one at that, but there are still utterly gullible morons who think it's real).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohP8LgMMo7c

Let's please use facts, not speculation for this thread.

This is the best evidence against the moon landings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

>>9553666
>conspiracy theorist piece of garbage full of half truths and false conclusions

>>9553835

>Doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever to back up claims.

>>9553844
Neither does that video.

Simple logic, if the USSR at the time, didn't claim the moon landing was fake in their propaganda, what reason do we have to claim it?

>>9551224
Vast amount comparable to the moon landing? All the math that NASA did before the launch is probably double of the paperwork in UFOs
From reliable sources as NASA or the Government (more reliable than the village idiot who spotted UFOs)

>>9551228
The difficulty of faking it was worse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhp-FTYSGe8

>>9553862

If the moon landings did actually happen, why would people be paid to make videos like this to try and convince people they did actually happen?

The best thing they could do to convince people is simply by doing it again. I don't get why people don't think it's odd that the only people who ever went to the moon did it over 40 years ago. How many people have gone to the moon since the year 2000? Zero. 40+ years to perfect the technology to go to the moon. 40+ years to cut the costs to a minimum. We all know how technology develops, constant improvement and refinement, and it gets cheaper.

NASA have received hundreds of billions since the last mission to the moon in '72. What do they have to show for it?

Yes. I tried building a rocket once but it didn't work.

>>9553914
It's the Apollo Program, not mission. We have landed on the moon several times.

Apollo 11 was the first lunar landing, with a crew of Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin.
Next was Apollo 12. July 16–24, 1969, crew of C. "Pete" Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Alan Bean.
Third landing was Apollo 14 of Jan 31 – Feb 9, 1971. Crew of Alan Shepard, Stuart Roosa, and Edgar Mitchell. (Shepard brought a six-iron and 2 golf balls. The hit went "Miles and miles and miles." Actual distance was ~300 yards.)
Fourth was Apollo 15, Jul 26 – Aug 7, 1971.
Fifth was Apollo 16, Apr 16–27, 1972.
Last for the program was Apollo 17, Dec 7–19, 1972. (First geologist on the moon)

>>9553914
>The best thing they could do to convince people is simply by doing it again. I don't get why people don't think it's odd that the only people who ever went to the moon did it over 40 years ago.
I love it when people reveal as part of their argument against something that they don't actually know anything about the thing they're trying to debunk. It's like when flat earthers mock the appearance of the LEM. The very fact that you're asking these questions demonstrates you don't understand how space flight works and your opinion can be discarded.

>>9553357
Bet the Aussies used them to record an episode of Home and Away.

>>9553008
What can I say, we had rehearsal (Apollo 10).

>Nobody understands orbital mechanics.
>GPS and satellite TV don't actually work.

>>9553968

I'm well aware of that, that's why I said over 40 years ago. It's even more absurd to think that they got to the moon and back without a hitch 5 times but haven't bothered for 40+ years since. You don't see anything fishy about that, seriously?

>>9554086
What do you think is "fishy" about it?

>>9553008
>No one understands orbital patterns or why they're arranged as such.
Jesus christ, Anon. These are pretty basic.

The closer to Earth the orbit is, the faster the object must be travelling, the shorter the circumference of the orbit, the quicker it completes a full orbit.
If you then ask about inclinations that's about coverage. The more surface area of the planet you want to cover with your orbit, especially if it is a LEO, the more inclined your orbit will be, until you get polar orbits which most Earth Imaging sats love because they can image strips of the entire planet.

If you don't understand orbital patterns or why they're arranged then I can only assume you haven't tried to research or understand it. You just think it doesn't make sense and so you dismiss it.

>>9554015
Also, Apollo 8.

>>9554249
Also, various lunar probes and such.

>>9550575
Yes.

Reading some of the comments in this thread and I think I'm done here.
I thought this was a serious board for educated people.

>>9554308
i was hoping it would be

>>9551509
>Goes on to explain how they could have been faked
>Using theoretical technology that didn't exist at the time

>>9551667
When you speed it up their centers of gravity and shit make no sense.
Their posture too. All that time they walking or standing bent leg. No one would do that under Earth gravity.

>>9554247
No, because you don't understand orbital mechanics.

Why do the planets orbit on a plane? Do they get closer to the sun? Why do the planets spin? Are the orbits elliptical or spherical? Why are the orbits along the golden ratio?

Everyone explains this shit off with literal marble ball physics in free space and Coriolis garbage.
People laugh at the flat earth retards and then come back saying the Earth is an oblate spheroid and there is pressure felt due to the SPIN of the planet in a vacuum.

>>9554015
Why would anyone use GPS and TV through satellites when you can just do it with wires?
It's so fucking stupid, do you understand how hard it would be to repair that shit?

>>9554638
So basically "I think the explanation is bollocks so it's bullshit".

>there is pressure felt due to the SPIN of the planet in a vacuum.
Not sure anyone has said that.

>>9554641
I remember this argument from about a week ago.

You were retarded then and you're still retarded now. Land based GPS wouldn't work tens of kilometers from base stations. Satellite GPS works in mountains and the middle of the ocean. Your argument is invalid.

>>9554806
yeah, but the thing from 200 billion km up works just fine. Okay.

I can't even get fucking signal in my bathroom when I'm wanking this nigga thinks the satellite is giving is navy shit signal and not radio dishes.

>>9554799
Pretty sure they do.
>Well ah you feel the this because on the equator did you know the earth is actually spnning faster and thus

Fucking end science. It's all run by brain damaged brainlets. I'da rather the catholics have their say again at this point.

>>9555029
>>Well ah you feel the this because on the equator did you know the earth is actually spnning faster and thus
Yeah, the equator shit is all bollocks. You feel nothing special on the equator. You are a tiny big lighter on the equator than on the poles, but you're also a tiny bit lighter aftee taking a shit and you don't notice that weight difference.

>>9555027
Unless your bathroom is an outhouse that isn't so surprising. It's almost as if having objects in the path of electromagnetic waves interferes with thoses waves in some manner.

>>9555038
>you feel nothing at the equator

>>9555038
Man if I drive 10km out from the city I lose all signal.
If I'm up on some mountain range there's no signal.

It's almost like it's phone towers and nothing else.

>>9555174
It's almost as if you are using a phone that requires cellular support for GPS and not a standalone GPS device.

But surely you wouldn't be that stupid.

>>9555180
It's almost as if cullar support IS GPS.

it would have been easier to just go to the moon rather than fake it

>>9555202
Except not at all.

>>9550575
What kind of brainlet believes in the moon?

>>9550575
no
is the moon fake? that's a whole other question
ask me about the secret nazi plot to build a moon and rewrite history
the nazis travelled the earth and rewrote all of history to add the moon there
proof: not one video of the moon prior to 1920

>>9555267
I think the moon is artificial, because it don't move. That's truth.

>>9555346
>it don't move
Maybe you need to leave your mother's basement

>>9555202
Simple test:
>Get directional antenna for a GPS
>Point it at a GPS satellite
If you get signal, congrats you learned what everybody else with a brain already knows. If you don't, then you can act smug on /sci/

why would anyone feed this boring thread? is this board really that boring?

>>9555202
GPS works in the middle of the ocean dumbass. It's how ships navigate.

>>9555202

>>9554129
See
>>9553399

>>9555576

No it doesn't dumbass. ADS-B towers are used for the oceans.

>>9555692
>ADS-B for boats

>>9555711
Boats work out their location by connecting to buoys you dumbass.

>>9555571
4chan always loves a good trollthread

>>9555346
>I think the moon is artificial, because it don't move.

>>9555038
>You are a tiny big lighter on the equator than on the poles

>>9554129
Well, the main reason we went to the moon in the first place was because we were in a dick measuring contest with soviet russia -by that time they were the top force in space exploration, having multiple "firsts" in space related missions- and it was the cold war period. When the cold war ended, we no longer had the need to keep competing against someone that was for all intents and purposes, "dead".

>>9555901
>>9554086

>>9555901
That's the narrative the media spun. I think it more likely the US and Russia were in bed with each other. They both knew they couldn't get to the moon so they came to an agreement behind closed doors.

>>9555972
So what you are saying is that you are a crank? That;s fine, 4chan is a great place for cranks.

>>9556080
And that's why you're here.

>>9555972
But soviet russia had a better rocket system (so good that the US scientitst tought the Specific Impulse the rocket engine had was impossible), were the first on orbit, the first to launch several successful missions to another planet and the first to orbit the moon with a probe. The only reason that US won the moon race was because they decided to not puss out and even then, they did it after the deadline they self imposed. Also take into consideration the ammount of people you would have to keep quiet. There WOULD have been leaks yes or yes.

>>9556145
If they were so good how did they fail to get to a human to the moon? Why have they never bothered since?

>Also take into consideration the ammount of people you would have to keep quiet

We're talking about the military here, that's kinda their job.

>>9550684
no animojis for them i guess

>>9556165
>If they were so good how did they fail to get to a human to the moon?
Soviet russia political incompetence really. There was a lot of nepotism on that time and the heads of the space division were on that position because they were family of important persons, not because they were capable.

>Why have they never bothered since?
>>9555901 It was a dick measuring contest. we havent bothered to send people to the moon since then because there is no need to.
>We're talking about the military here, that's kinda their job.
so? Its pretty much impossible to keep quiet hundreds of thousands of people. There would be an endless stream of anonymous sources here and there. The logistics of keeping people quiet are harder than to just send the people to the moon.

>>9556192
<Soviet russia political incompetence really. There was a lot of nepotism on that time and the heads of the space division were on that position because they were family of important persons, not because they were capable.

So either they were really good at rocket building or they weren't, can't have it both ways.

>It was a dick measuring contest. we havent bothered to send people to the moon since then because there is no need to.

No need to? What kind of bullshit excuse is that? Do we need to go anywhere in space?

>hundreds of thousands of people
It's nowhere near that number. Most of them are dead now anyway.

>>9556223
>So either they were really good at rocket building or they weren't, can't have it both ways.
those two things don´t contradict each other. The soyuz program proves that their engineers were one of the best at that time. Their inability to lauch is related to the heads of the proyects that basically kept much of the budget for themselves, did ¨safe¨ stuff in oirder to not seem incompetent or tried to do something flashy and they failed in an impressive manner.

>No need to? What kind of bullshit excuse is that? Do we need to go anywhere in space?
those are two different things. At the time of the moon landings we really had no reason to go, other than to know its composition and such. Now we know that the moon has high traces of Helium-3, which will be wonderful for the future fusion reactors, so at this time we have a new reason to go.
Space travel in general is important because we know that there are things(asteroids) that can and probably will wipe all of us in seconds. Having the ability to leave the planet and inhabit another (or live in space stations) is really important for the future of the race. There are also a shitload of rare eath metals that are easily available and in hughe numbers in our asteroid belt, so that is also another reason.

>It's nowhere near that number. Most of them are dead now anyway.
Yet there was not a single report that implied that the US was conspiring with the reds.

>>9550698
Already been confirmed by lunar orbiters. Size of human artifacts on the moon are too small to be resolved by any earth-bound telescope. Even Hubble scope can't resolve them. But orbiters can because they are closer. 90mile vs 240,000miles makes a difference.

>>9551136
lol that's not true, I've been working on my own 1 meter wide mirror for a telescope I'm building (to see nebula and nearby galaxies, and get a good view of the moon, maybe mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and no government official has knocked on my door to confiscate my mirror

>>9551193
People may have been bouncing lasers off the moon in the early sixties, but they weren't getting any reflections back, because the only reflectors on the moon were placed by the Apollo crews and two Russian Lunokhod landers in the 1970s.

>>9555754
You might be the biggest brainlet if you think boats navigate via buoy in the middle of the sea you dumb cunt. And no, they don't use fucking ADS-B, that's for aircraft, they use AIS, much of which is satellite based and augmented by GPS/GLONASS.

Get off this board and get back to /x/.

>>9556292
i think hubble isnt even able to focus that close.
its like trying to make a close up photo of an apple a meter away using a normal telescope.

>>9554086
I'd say Apollo 13 was a "hitch". And Apollo 1.

>>9556274
>those two things don´t contradict each other. The soyuz program proves that their engineers were one of the best at that time. Their inability to lauch is related to the heads of the proyects that basically kept much of the budget for themselves, did ¨safe¨ stuff in oirder to not seem incompetent or tried to do something flashy and they failed in an impressive manner.

Yeah, really sounds like they wanted to go to the moon. Sounds like they fucked it up deliberately to me.

Don't you think the moon would be the best choice to inhabit first? Get a feeling for how living and setting up bases is like? It's right fucking there and we've (apparently) already gotten there!

>Yet there was not a single report that implied that the US was conspiring with the reds.

As I said, this was a military operation.

>>9555692
ADS-B is a tracking technology for aircraft. It is satellite-based. Aircraft obtain their position by satellite, then rebroadcast it to allow tracking.

>>9556314
You are correct,it is not.

>>9556340
>Yeah, really sounds like they wanted to go to the moon. Sounds like they fucked it up deliberately to me.
Anon, corruption is a thing. Just look at the current politicians and what htey do. ther eis no need for a larger conspiracy when basic human greed gets in the way.

>As I said, this was a military operation.
The scale of this supposed military operation whould have to be orders of magnitude bigger than anything up to date. Not only that but when the soviet union disbanded, it became a political clusterfuck and a shitload of information was revealed. There is no feasible way that no people snitched or that there were cornerned families looking for their dissapeared members, or families that dissappeared because they were connected to some person. You also have to keep in consideration that such military operation would be active today, yet there are no reports from it of any kind. Now tell me what is simpler. That they couldn´t launch a man on the moon because the soviets had incompetent/corrupt leaders(as it has been proved before trough different sources), Or that they had the logistical power to create a military operation that was used to hide something that is mostly irrelevant and that should be used in a better way.

>>9556090
We're all here forever, man. We should be kind to each other.

>>9556352
>Or that they had the logistical power to create a military operation that was used to hide something...
... for the benefit of their enemy

>>9556292
Hubble resolving power at that distance would show an object about 200 meters across.

>>9556364
>... for the benefit of their enemy
what? why would they want to benefit their enemies?

>>9556314

>>9556223
They made a damn nice engine. Successful manned lunar missions take more than that.

For example, the Soviet government divided the manned moon mission between two design bureaus, meaning neither was sufficiently funded. That resulted in issues like being unable to static test the N-1 (Soviet analogue to the US Saturn V) first stage as a unit, which meant their test firings had to be launches, which led to multiple launch failures.

>>9556373
That, I think, was his pint.

>>9556393
exactly. thats why its more probable that the soviets couldn´t launch a man to the moon due to incompetence and corruption rather than a nation wide military operation.

>>9556352
>Anon, corruption is a thing. Just look at the current politicians and what htey do. ther eis no need for a larger conspiracy when basic human greed gets in the way.

And yet the US managed it fine...

>Now tell me what is simpler. That they couldn´t launch a man on the moon because the soviets had incompetent/corrupt leaders(as it has been proved before trough different sources), Or that they had the logistical power to create a military operation that was used to hide something that is mostly irrelevant and that should be used in a better way.

Both are true. The leaders deliberately fucked it up as per their agreement with the US.

>>9556397
Add divided funding and the death of Korolev, and we're on the same page.

>>9556408
>And yet the US managed it fine...
Mostly due to patriotism, different mamagement strategies, a whole different culture, that they werent communists and that they really hated the reds.

>The leaders deliberately fucked it up as per their agreement with the US.
again, why would soviet russia agree to work with the US when they were enemies. They gain nothing, specially considering that they were at the time the best at space exploration. Is there even a smidge of proof regarding such agreement?

>>9556408
>The leaders deliberately fucked it up as per their agreement with the US.

Interesting conspiracy theory.

Of course, some conspiracies are real, so I am sure you have evidence of this conspiracy to share with us. No way somebody would make an assertion like that on an anonymous image board without at least a shred of evidence.

>>9556418
>Mostly due to patriotism, different mamagement strategies, a whole different culture

What, like using Nazi rocket scientists? Very patriotic.

>why would soviet russia agree to work with the US when they were enemies.

Because there's something in it for them? You're also assuming they're actually enemies.

>>9556419

The evidence is the moon landings were clearly faked and Russia never called them out on it.

>>9556447
I stand corrected. You have no evidence of your conspiracy assertions.

>>9556436
>Very patriotic.
It might not be patriotic, but it is a different management strategy and the US really hated the reds.

>Because there's something in it for them? You're also assuming they're actually enemies.
You´d better post evidence of something, because i can come with a lof of evidence that points towards the Soviet union being unable to launch a man on the moon due to incompetence and corruption.

>>9556447
that´s more evidence that they DID land rather than they were bought out. Hell, buying the silence of the whole soviet union would cost more than the apollo program.

>>9550639
I love this, so much. I imagine that, if I went to the moon and made it back, I would be unable to resist punching these conspiracy theory autists in the face if they came up to me trying to tell me why it was fake.

>>9556460
>>9556568

Current Russian government have questioned it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.html

>>9556596
Based Putin.

With a straight face, tell me this is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

>>9556596
Wrong. they are not investigating to see if the landings happened. they are investigating to see what happened to the tapes of the first landing.

Extracted from the article:
"According to a translation by the Moscow Times, Markin would support an inquiry into the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock, which was brought back to Earth during several missions.

“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,” Markin wrote, according to the Moscow Times translation."

>>9556620
This is real.

>>9556623

Not so fast, notice the "[to the moon]" in brackets, this was added by the translator. The original translation would have been "We are not contending that they did not fly", because they did fly a rocket, but did the rocket go to the moon? No.

>>9556623
They needed to frame the proposal from a normie angle or it would get shot down immediate. Russian Federation knows what's up, give them an inroad from that angle and they'll make it rain redpills regarding the validity of the footage in the first place.

>>9556632

>>9556648
The brackets are to make things clear, because there are people like you that will minsinterpretate the information. Also, the investigation was 3 years ago, has it yielded anything?

>>9556662
>I think >>9556620 is real

>>9550575
No you retard.

>>9556623
>to see what happened to the tapes of the first landing.

https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasas-original-lunar-images-are-housed-in-a-former-mcdonalds/

Obviously real

>>9556903
That's actually a good example, since you can see how zero dust is kicked into the air and hangs there -- since there is no atmosphere, it all falls down again like you'd expect on the moon.

>>9556903
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2adl6LszcE&t=1s

Look at the regolith they kick up when they fall over, its actually proof it was filmed on the moon because it wouldn't behave that way on Earth it does on the moon because of the lower gravity

Its the same with video showing the lunar rover driving on the surface, kicking up regolith in a pattern and trajectory not possible anywhere on Earth.

>>9556917

It's called slow motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA

>>9556928
Thats retarded as it would mean the astronauts are tripping over or the rover is driving twice as fast as it actually is in order to appear slow enough in slow motion while the regolith is still kicked up at the same speed too

You are absolutely retarded for believing that.

>>9556936

Prove it brainlet, where's your evidence?

>>9553399
look at the knees faggot

>>9556968
Burden of proof is on you to show evidence the footage was slowed down.

>>9556996

Right here brainlet, you blind? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA

>>9556984
no im not gay

Look at this, Apollo 12 demonstrated precision landing by landing the LEM 600 feet from the Surveyor 3 lunar lander, if you look up its position on the moon now you'll find it all looks the same as it does in this pic, right next to the crater, and with the lower portion of the LEM nearby as it is in this pic

>>9556620
Definitely real.

>>9557010
I saw your retarded fucking video you idiot, >>9556936
If thats all you have as "proof" then you don't have an argument to stand on beyond a delusional one

>>9557025

>>9550575
Yes.

>>9557023

>>9557025
Explain why it's not proof brainlet?

>>9557044
I already did you fucking faggot >>9556936, stop going in this roundabout way you have no solid argument and peddled your shitty video twice now.

>>9557050

Here's the rover at its actual speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-nYOMweNFw

Dust behaves the same as it would on earth.

>>9557065
But dust doesn´t behaves like that on earth. When you kick the dirt, the dust lingers in the air because it is colliding with the particles of air around it. In the video it doesn´t.

>>9557065
Wrong, look at the part, the dust tail is still significantly higher than it can ever appear on Earth due to gravity.

On the low gravity lunar environment it makes sense though, even when the footage is sped up. Your own debunking video debunks only itself and its retarded argument.

>>9557065
Eh, but that dust is not hanging in the air. It just falls limply back to the ground.

Do you know how dust behaves on Earth?

>>9557065
>Comments are disabled for this video.

Says it all really.

>>9557010
Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the explanation for this was just different listening stations using different types of film to record the video broadcasts from Apollo.

It's known they had listening stations all over the world for this and European/Australasian regions use different video standards than USA, which means proper conversions need to be done between the two. Some of the complaints in the video, like duplicate frames, are direct results of doing a conversion between 24 and 30 fps.

>>9557075
>>9557076
>>9557078

That's exactly how a powdery substance would behave on earth, where's your evidence proving otherwise ?

>>9557098
Kick the dust outside your house. None of it will go that high, even if you use a car, then the majority will fall down while some lingers in the air.

>>9557104

What dust?

>>9557089
The videos are from the same source, they're not stupid

>>9557112
dirt, soil, whatever. Kick it and compare what it does to what the dirt in the video does.

>>9557124
We're not talking about dirt/soil are we?

>>9557098
>That's exactly how a powdery substance would behave on earth, where's your evidence proving otherwise ?
I have lived on this planet. So my experience tells me you are full of shit.
Also, have you seen any rally races on dusty roads?

>>9557138
Are we talking about dirt? A dense powder, made of metal for example, would behave like that.

>>9550575
It would be a lot more difficult to fake the moon landing.

>>9557149
No, we're talking about dust. A fine powder that exists pretty much anywhere dry dirt is.

>>9557185
Are you implying that the moon footage contains dry earth dirt? Wait, do you believe the "moon landings" were filmed on earth? Well I totally agree.

>>9557211
Lunar regolith is completely different from Earth soil in composition and structure retard

Also check this out, S-IVB stage jettisoned during Apollo 12, found in orbit around Earth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

Your retarded hoaxes can't refute this - discovered by amateur astronomers too.

>>9557232

And that means what mooncuck?

It's not fake, but the astronauts were. They were BLACK, not Caucasian.

>>9557243
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

Belongs in the fucking sci-fi section, what a load of shit. Seriously, how does this pass as science?

>>9557252
This, we wuz Apollo, they even said it in this video >>9556917
>"You are BLACK"

>>9557211
It contains very fine, powdery, dirt like substance that would act like dust in our atmosphere, if it were in an atmosphere.

Because it fails to act like it would in an atmosphere we can only conclude that the video was taken somewhere there was no atmosphere.

In before they filmed it in the largest vacuum chamber in the world and somehow still didn't get light reflections off the walls.

>>9557268

Are you claiming you know what the substance is in the Apollo video?

>>9557291
Are you claiming that you do while he doesn't?

>>9557291
Yes.

>>9557299

Did I say that brainlet?

>>9557306

Delusional.

>>9551290
>Nothing to see here folks...
That's literally why we haven't been back you fucking idiot.

>>9557311

Oh because humans have explored every nook and cranny of the moon? Only one generation of people have experienced going to the moon, people of the future don't need to experience that. We don't need to see the moon in 4k, we don't need to see moon bases being built, we don't need to see experiments, or exploration. Nah, a tin can in low earth orbit is good enough for us.

Fucking brainlets!

>>9557311
We haven't been back because there's little public support for it and it costs a lot.
If NASA was given a blank cheque to fund further Moon exploration you can bet they'd be fast tracking a lander for their SLS to put people back on the surface of the Moon.

The money just isn't there, though, and the public doesn't give a shit.

>>9557335
We were on the fast track but that fucker Obama cancelled the Constellation program, and redirected NASA's goal to an asteroid redirect mission that went fucking nowhere and a vague promise of Mars by 2030, now the asteroid redirect is cancelled and the focus is on the Lunar Gateway and a possible return to the Moon sometime after all using SLS, and Mars 2030's of course.

If Obama hadn't redirected the entire course of the agency we would have had Orion and Altair by now and a rocket more powerful than the SLS the Ares V and have landed on the moon surely by now and probably been halfway through preparations for the manned Mars landing

>>9557310
At least you have to agree that believing the moon landings were merely televised theater is part of the skeptical investigation required for building enough empirical proofs towards a non-delusional conviction that they really happened. Which implies two things: you either did that and gathered enough data to conclude against the moon landing hoax theories OR you haven't and you just believe something without scientific effort. There are curious things happening these days like the New York Times reporting UFOs, which will lead some people to believe that the establishment now wants them to believe in these things, therefore the conspiracy is now that there are no UFOs! Is it delusional to not believe in UFOs now? More funny is the sudden rise of the Flat Earth Movement, which virtually didn't exist until 2010s and basically associates Moon Hoax people with a belief system that wasn't even popular during the Dark Ages and before. Is it hard for an organization to use these memes to manipulate and discredit people who believe humans never went beyond the Van Allen belts?

>>9550606
Can you post pics?
Does it have Tom Kelly's name on it?

>>9557351
>skeptical
This means looking at the evidence with scrutiny.
Dismissing scientific consensus off hand is not the same.
Or maybe that was your point?

>>9557342
To be fair and regardless of the causes and reasons of cancellation and such, the asteroid redirect mission is more important than going to the moon.

Bruh How is my thread still alive!?!?

>>9551232
It's so shockingly embarrassing when someone like you tries to use that as a closer man
Just being a contrarian piece of shit without a shred of evidence to call all other evidence inadequate is just so pathetic it is unbelievable

>>9557053
Earth is the wrong size

>>9556928
Please explain how slow motion would cause al dust to fall back to the ground rather than hang in the air.

The fact that it was shot on the moon explains that nicely, since there is no air there.

>>9557089
gis is sort of a hallmark of the whole "moon landing is fake" nonsense (or "Earth is flat" nonsense," or other similar nonsense.)

They find some feature that they do not understand, and present their ignorance as somehow evidence of something.

If you show them where they are wrong, they will cling to their ignorance as long as they can - if you ever manage to explain it simply enough that it penetrates their brains, they then shift goalposts to some other point about which they are ignorant.

>>9557098
Try an experiment. Take a handful of flour, toss it into the air. observe what happens. Note whether it all instantly falls to the floor, or whether some of it hangs in the air.

After yu clean up the mess, report back to us.

If they were faked why wouldn't the Russians have leaked the information to discredit the US?

>>9558243
Maybe take a video to show us.
If you don't have any flour, talcum powder will do.

>>9558243
>flour
>>9558292
>talcum powder
Regolith isn't like either. Science fails again. Earth is flat.

All these posts and no math!
Here wrap your mind on this: How high could you jump on the moon in a fully loaded with a space suit?

>>9558471
Fairly high.

>>9558474
Not very mathy-magical but ill bite: Did you see an astro-not on the moon jump fairly high?

>>9558485
Yes.

I refuse to believe anyone with a sound mind believes this is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

If you believe it you must have the mental age of 5. It's shocking that any adult accepts it as real.

Any shill here that does pretend to believe it's real, I'd love to know what it is about the footage that has you convinced.

They orbited the Earth for eight days because they couldn't have gotten part the Orion belt or they would have been fried off radiation it's not their fault they're failed they just did you cannot go past the Orion belt we do not have the technology to withstand the radiation they would have been fried to death in 10 minutes my I don't understand why they covered it up and went to the moon a second time and put more people on the moon with a fake Landing dumb they're just trying to cover up all the money they borrowed so the NASA program that look like a failure

>>9558501
>IT'S FAKE BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL BECAUSE SHUT UP!
Incredible.

>>9558519
That stupid retarded conspiracy theory makes no sense especially when you consider Apollo 13, if they were faking the Apollo program why would they go through the trouble, and through the perception that they were not infallible with a failed mission that went awry and the crew never got to land on the moon

If NASA and the USG wanted a perfect fakery and to display their national and space superiority to the USSR and the world all missions would go off without a hitch because they would all be designed that way, but thats not what happened with Apollo 13

>>9558519
>Orion belt
what the fuck are you on.

you mean the van allen belt, and its a non-issue to cross that. exposure time to the radiation is important, thats why they wore personal radiation dosimeters, to make sure they all just get their year worth of radiation which you would receive on earth as background radiation as well.

only brainlets mention the van allen belt as one of their facts why we could have "never been to the moon"

>>9558663
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiscigIgBc

>>9556936
>>9556943
>>9557031
>>9557053
>>9557071
Thank you for posting these gorgeous images anon!

>>9558636
or apollo 1 for that matter.

>>9558678
50 years from now tards like you will deny a Tesla was launched into space.

>>9558983
Mr Musk himself will wish he had never done it, too.

>>9558636

There was never anyone in the Apollo rockets, before take off they would escape down a slide and wait for the rocket to take off. You can see this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLiAwSKkm6k

The Apollo 13 rocket blew up accidentally, but the crew members would have been hiding in the basement, still very much alive. Pic related, they're still alive.

>>9559073
>The Apollo 13 rocket blew up
>Apollo 13
>blew up

I'm being baited.

>>9558965
Glad you enjoyed 'em

>>9559088

>>9559089

>>9559092

>>9559086
Challenger*

>>9559093

>>9559094
Challenger was the space shuttle SRB explosion, Apollo 13 was the Apollo service module explosion, get your facts and history right before you even attempt to challenge them jesus christ.

>>9559092
Absolutely stunning landscape. I never realised how aesthetic the Apollo 17 space suits were.

It must have been like diving, only more existential... to look up and see your home suspended in the air. To truly grasp the relative scale of existence. I imagine it's much the same in Earth orbit, to see your unhindered speed allowed for by the lack of the gas that gives you life, suspended like a soundless bullet in orbit over a grand blue earth.

>>9558436
There is enough very fine powder in the regolith to make the experiment valid. Dust clung to everything, if you'll recall. There's a picture up-thread of one of the guys back in the landers and his suit covered in it.

If you want to mix in some very dry sand and stuff, I guess you could -- but what we're interested in here is what happens to the very fine dust when you throw it up in the air, vs. what happens to the very fine dust in the vids and gifs up-thread.

I suspect you know the answer, and are just fucking around, which is why you try to change the subject.

Trolling is a art, right?

>>9559180
>Trolling is a art, right?
Made you reply

>>9556577
Maybe he was angry because someone pointed out the truth
anything is possible

>>9559107
Beautifully well said anon. And yeah, astronauts report the overview effect when they see the Earth from space, a profound feeling

>>9559234

>>9559237

>>9559107
>how aesthetic the Apollo 17 space suits were.

They really were, cool as fuck. I wonder what they will look like when we return to the moon again, if they will be just as bulky and cool looking.

>>9559245

>>9559253

>>9559261

>>9559247
chances are that they will be like the one starman was using.

>>9559298
Starman did ot need much
O2 or cooling, dough...

>>9558474
That would be a big jump

>>9559298
I personally think it will look more like ACES

musks spacesuit may be good for crew flight and occasional EVAs but its far from perfect.

>>9559073
That picture really is offensive

>>9559517
For moon

>>9558983
did you even watch the video? it was making a point that it is indeed possible to cross the van allen belt you dolt.

>>9559234
wasn't one of the apollo astronauts saying something in the line of "we have come to explore the moon, but instead discovered earth"?
i think this one was way deeper than "one small step" i guess back in the days this was considered hippie tree hugger talk

>>9552926
Ok smartass how come shit like GPS works?

>>9554086
> spending several million $ to collect some rocks
NASA did it only because of the cold war in the first place.

>>9560083

*pats head*

That's right kid, that's right...

>>9560076

It's done by land based telecommunications. No cell signal = no GPS.

Planes for example don't get GPS over the Atlantic ocean, which is how flights like the Malaysian 370 can just disappear without a trace.

>>9560335
>It's done by land based telecommunications. No cell signal = no GPS.
No. GPS works fine in the middle of Australia, and isn't any cell phone reception there.

>Planes for example don't get GPS over the Atlantic ocean
Yes they do.

>which is how flights like the Malaysian 370 can just disappear without a trace.
Your logic is horribly backwards. People onboard a plane knowing their position don't magically tell anyone else where the plane is.

>>9560447

Imbecile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9KilIIC8ck

>>9560498
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9KilIIC8ck
An idiot writing dumb comments over an otherwise decent video doesn't prove GPS is fake.

>>9560506

Oh so GPS works over the Atlantic ocean? Imbecile.