/sci/ - Science & Math

It's pretty much accepted that it was faked and "livestreamed" from a studio. The stuff that was placed on the moon, if any, was placed by an unmanned probe. The only reason the Soviets didn't blow the whistle is either because they couldn't track the mission in space, or they had something to hide as well, as in mutual blackmail.

>>10314129
>>>/x/

>>10314114
>How did (((they))) livestream the Moon Landing in 1969?
ftfy
and that should answer your question

>>10314129
>It's pretty much accepted

>>10314129
>>10314132
Thanks for visiting /sci/, head back to your containment board anytime!

>>10314129
>if any, was placed by an unmanned probe
>we had the tech to make good unmanned shit in the fucking 60s
thats even crazier than saying we didnt go to the moon
the reason we had men on the moon was because theyre way better at doing those jobs than a robot

>>10314138
>we had the tech to make good unmanned shit in the fucking 60s

The Russians landed an unmanned probe on Venus in the '60s. And several unmanned probes were sent to the moon before the alleged moon landing. It's much easier to send a remote probe to the moon than it is to send a human there and back - as you should already know by now, by the simple fact that we have rovers and not humans on Mars. In fact the Viking landers were already on Mars since the 1970s.

>>10314156

My bad, these images of Venus were taken in 1981, they were also transmitted in black and white and recolored afterwards but my point still stands. An unmanned one-way probe is much easier than a manned return mission.

>>10314129
i didn't believe it was a hoax until i watched some of the footage. man it does NOT hold up. especially the later landings.

also its been hilariously long since anyone has gone back

>>10314137
>>10314135

Prove to me it was real and not staged. Considering that 2001: A space Odyssey and several other realistic films about landing in alien environments were coming out around the same time, I think it's more than a coincidence. Americans saw the decade were almost up, some guy watched 2001 and had the brain wave "Wait a minute... we don't need to go there at all, we can just broadcast it from a studio". The whole thing was way too cinematic and not like a scientific mission at all.

>>10314165

The recently sent Chinese probe also confirmed they found no evidence of the American manned moon landings. It's over.

>>10314169
>Prove to me it was real and not staged.
I very much doubt there is any evidence that would ever change your mind, but you are aware that Apollo 11 brought back rock samples, right?

>>10314137
>!

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

>>10314176
>you are aware that Apollo 11 brought back rock samples

You are aware that one of those so-called "rock samples" that was gifted to the Netherlands from the participants on those missions turned out to be nothing more than petrified wood, right?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Furthermore, do moon rock samples have a specific signature different from Earth rock samples? I await your response.

>>10314171
citation requested

>>10314114

They used a lower resolution slow-scan video system so that less power was needed at the transmitter. (360 lines, 10 frames per second.) Then the receivers on Earth were gigantic.

The Val Allen Belt doesn't block radio frequencies at all, it blocks stuff above the ultra-violet.

>>10314185
>You are aware that one of those so-called
>one of those so-called
>one
Yeah, very convincing.

>Furthermore, do moon rock samples have a specific signature different from Earth rock samples? I await your response.
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Amazing what google can do.

>>10314200
>The Val Allen Belt doesn't block radio frequencies at all, it blocks stuff above the ultra-violet.

Too bad it also blocks humans.

>>10314205
>one

Good to know you're already backpedaling. All the other samples are probably not given out for third party investigation. The fact that even one was a fake should be a huge red flag.

>>10314185

>Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.

If it didn't look like the other moon rocks, how does it make all the rocks fake? It means someone swiped the rock in transit. If someone steals you wallet it doesn't mean that all money is fake.

>>10314207
>Too bad it also blocks humans.

Says who? Name a radiation expert who says this.

>>10314219
>If it didn't look like the other moon rocks

Where does it say they tested it by comparing it to the other alleged moon rocks?

>>10314211
>Good to know you're already backpedaling.
It's not backpedaling to call out that a sample that went through many people and eventually came from an old, almost blind and deaf man, might have been misplaced or swiped. People have literally been stealing and vandalizing these things when they get out into the world.

>>10314222

Dr. Bruce Banner of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

>>10314205
>http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

Nigger you think I'm going to read all that assabble that even you didn't read? If you can't summarize what makes a moon rock in a line, a paragraph, or even a few words, it means you don't know. There's no abstract in that.

>>10314129
>It's pretty much accepted that it was faked and "livestreamed" from a studio.

>>10314236
No, I don't expect you to read it. If I expected you to read it, I'd also have expected you to inform yourself beforehand. It's just evidence that you haven't actually tried looking into this for yourself before forming an opinion.

>>10314236
A moon rock is a rock that comes from the moon dummy; even a 5 year old knows that.

>>10314231
>It's not backpedaling to call out that a sample that went through many people and eventually came from an old, almost blind and deaf man, might have been misplaced or swiped. People have literally been stealing and vandalizing these things when they get out into the world.

That's just your hypothesis, supported by nothing. It's likely the object passed as is from the ambassador to Drees then to the museum.

>>10314246
>It's likely the object passed as is from the ambassador to Drees then to the museum.
You're right, it's not like there's been a history of other samples being stolen that would inform our opinions on this one.

>>10314244

I've seen all the evidence I need to see from the hokey footage and the scrubbing campaign for certain footage.

>>10314129
imagine actually believing this

>>10314253
imagine being so naive as to not

most conspiracy theorists dont take into account how stupid and inefficient huge organisations are. if you made it all up with fake rocket missions that would never work in reality, with this whole filmstudio-thing, even with all the levels in hierarchy involved - there would have been leaks and weaknesses.
exactly the same with 9-11.

its much much more realistic that both events happened for at least 90% as it is stated than everything being staged and an inside-job etc.

>>10314244

If you've read it why don't you summarize it for me mr. smart guy?

>>10314261
Lemme just quote part from the section on "faked".

>Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks.

>>10314260
does nothing to refute the ridiculous footage I've seen

>>10314261
>I'm incapable of critical thought and learning on my own and must be spoonfed information

k

>>10314162
Actually, manned is a hell of a lot easier than probes, but humans unfortunately don't really like dying unnecessarily.

>>10314260
>most conspiracy theorists dont take into account how stupid and inefficient huge organisations are. if you made it all up with fake rocket missions that would never work in reality, with this whole filmstudio-thing, even with all the levels in hierarchy involved - there would have been leaks and weaknesses.
>its much much more realistic that both events happened for at least 90% as it is stated

That's pretty much what happened. Not everyone needs to be in on the hoax - the dum-dum gomers can go about their routines as planned. The film crews can be duped into believing they're filming some commercial (remember, the transmission doesn't even need to be live). They can even launch a rocket into space and pretend to recover something from the ocean. The only faked part pertains to actually putting someone on the moon and retrieving him.

>>10314277

A successful manned mission implies the return of the astronaut you autist.

>>10314268

You forgot to quote the part about no such rock having ever made it to the Earth.

>>10314299
How about you quote such a part?

>>10314268
>>10314205

Even if real, the recovery of moon rocks could still have been performed by unmanned probes.

But what's cheaper and more likely to succeed: putting a man on the moon and back, or putting some guy on academic welfare to write that he investigated moon rock samples and they're authentic? Media control and system manipulation in totalitarian states like North Korea and the Soviet Union suggests to us that this is not impossible.

>>10314270
You only think its ridiculous because what you're seeing is literally not abiding to the behaviour of physics you're used to on Earth.

>>10314270

Can you post some? YouTube has been scrubbed of a lot of footage. With renewed interest in the landings it looks like they scrambled to remove footage that they used to air regularly, even making ridiculous claims that the tapes have been "lost" (how the fuck do you lose footage of the single most important event in human history?).

>>10314292
Which is easier than probes, except humans don't like to die, so instead we send probes that don't mind dying.

Is there something you don't understand?

>>10314326
>Is there something you don't understand?

Yes, the machinations of your autistic retard brain.

>>10314318
You mean like where someone throws something and it hits the ship making a sound even though there's no air on the moon?

>Vladimir Markin said an enquiry should be launched 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.
>the disappearance of original footage from the first moon landing in 1969 and the whereabouts of lunar rock

lol. Oops!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-space-agency-nasa-us-moon-landing-mission-a8650056.html

>>10314341
>some of the most important footage ever released

Lol it was just an accident guys

>>10314253
It's not difficult, since I kind of do. How did they get passed the Van Allen belt unscathed? Have you seen the craft they supposedly went there in? All the CGI errors in NASA's ISS streams? Evidence they're actually using wires, not low gravity?

You know what pushed me over the edge, and really did it? The fact that they're using rockets. It became so obvious that they cannot possibly be really trying, and therefore, it must be theater. Why aren't they trying? Lack of any kind of launch assistance. We're not using chained explosives. We're using gauss or rail guns. Despite that there were massive projects in the 60's that could launch objects 80 km. It was scrapped. Guy in Iraq tried to build one, got killed.

All the old sci-fi converged on that we eventually transition to external objects that act on the craft to accelerate it to escape velocity. And it makes sense. Ask yourself, does the child tie a bunch of fancy rockets or propellers to get a rock over the fence, or does he just get out his slingshot? It's ludicrous, to watch any of it. And I'm sorry to NASA and space fans, but this stuff they're showing us is completely ridiculous.

It's the same as cancer and modern disease research. Money is sunk into these massive research apparatuses and either laundered elsewhere, used for something else, or wasted. Rocketry is waste. Rocketry is primitive. Rocketry is retarded. That's just the way it is.

I'm reminded of the tower of Babel. I believe we're not actually allowed to leave. I'm not sure why and how this is done.

>>10314340
Yeah that sure would be crazy. Mind linking to it?

>>10314333
No argument? I didn't think so.

Guys look, I built a spaceship!

>>10314362
I'm on my phone so I cba

Search for moon hoax now by jet wintzer

>>10314171
>The recently sent Chinese probe also confirmed they found no evidence of the American manned moon landings
hardly surprising since it was literally on the other side of the moon from the Apollo missions

>>10314357
>I kind of do
>proceeds to spout conspiracy theorist nonsense
No, you don't 'kind of do', you're literally fucking retarded.

>>10314367
>1 hour long video by a barely coherent conspiracy theorist

Nah, gonna pass on that.

>>10314320
>(how the fuck do you lose footage of the single most important event in human history?).

Yes, this is what gets me. The excuses made for this are crazy and the way so much of the core material produced by the missions seems to have been 'misplaced' absentmindedly is telling.

>>10314367
>>10314380

I'm not him but I suggest watching it. Nothing like looking at the original footage, and not just stuff they've sanitized and put online nowadays. It looks like an interesting film and already I've seen something weird at the 6:40 mark.

>>10314374
Nice response. Really showed me.

Why ain't we usin' rain guns guy?

>>10314366
Whats wrong with it? You realise there is no atmosphere on the moon, right?

>>10314396
rail*

>>10314396
I wonder what problems could arise putting humans on a railgun and exposing them to a billion G's instantly? Hmmmmm.

>>10314401
Like whatever dude, they'll manage lamo

Really though, the bulk of our launches don't involve people, they involve putting objects in orbit. I believe both the gauss and railgun approach could achieve escape velocity alone, and you could do 20 launches for the cost of 1 rocket launch. However at the bare minimum they could be used for the initial launch. Cleverness used to reduce the risk of the fuel tank exploding or what have you. entirely feasible, entirely not done. Was entirely scrapped in the 60's.

It's theater.

>>10314413
I refer to my former statement: you're fucking retarded.

>>10314207
Not if you go through fast enough. If you don't spend much time in the belts it's not a problem. You can go fast using rockets
>>10314396
*splash*
>>billions
oh it won't be near that high. Probably less than a million. The result will be the same
*splash*
Really the only question
>>10314413
mass drivers weren't found to be significantly cheaper than rockets. You need a lot of thermal protection to get through the atmosphere. Plus you have to build everything to withstand high G's and fit in a gun barrel which can add to mass costs.

>>10314425
Yeah, but. My reactor keeps turning off. Getting rid of xenon sounds really complicated. This isn't economically feasible.

Next.

>>10314413
Most satellites tend to be relatively light and delicate, they can't survive the massive g forces of a electromagnetic launch system.

Also an EM launch system can potentially get you very close to orbit, but it will always leave you with a perigee too low for orbit. No matter what you will need a small "upper stage" rocket attached to the payload so you can perform a burn at apogee and complete the orbit.

>>10314439
It would be beautiful, anon.

>>10314362

Found it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsH2M4m4zM#43m50s

>>10314362
>>10314340
>>10314367

I've got to say this thing about sound on the Apollo missions is a pretty compelling and glaring flaw in the footage.

bump

>>10314114
they used Unified S-band, which was developed specifically for the moon mission, today we could do much better

>>10314129
>pretty much accepted
by tinfoil hat wearing retards maybe, get out of your echo chamber, all your moon hoax shit has been debunked ages ago

>>10314366
That`s fake as fuck. Surface looks to shiny. I suppose they added the dirt after.

>>10314369
Stop moving the goalposts.
The Moons not that big, should be able to see something before it landed.

>>10314380
You are just as bad as those priests refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.

>>10314114
>How did they livestream the Moon Landing in 1969?
One, it wasn't "live" in the way you're probably thinking. The video/audio was transmitted back to Earth where it was recorded and broadcast, the same way television worked in general.
So unless you're doubting that television worked in 1969...
>Could we even do that today? A live broadcast beyond the Van Allen Belt, 380,000 km away?
Well, yes. We are listening to data streams well beyond the Moon currently, so it could easily be done.

>>10314716
>The Moons not that big, should be able to see something before it landed.
I think you'll find you're an idiot.
The Moon is big. It's really quite big.

>>10314169

>2001: A space Odyssey
>realistic

Imagine not being able to tell the difference between 1960's special effects and actual footage from the Moon. I think you should get your eyesight checked by a doctor.

>>10314114
High gain radio

>believes NASA when they say the Van Allen belts are a thing
>don't believe NASA when they've shown time and time again that the Van Allen belts were not in any way lethal to the astronauts of the Apollo missions
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf

THANK MR ALDRIN

>>10314722
>>10314716
>>10314712
How's the jaw, Bart? Still sore?

DURR DA VAN ALLEN BELT

>>10314367
yeah cool watch a video where a flattard has edited in an impact noise or some shit

>>10314961
>a flattard has edited in an impact noise or some shit

First, the fact that the hammering sounds could be heard are part of the official mission logs.

Second, I was looking into this and there were people on a forum from 2002, before YT, discussing having observed the same.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?1586-hammer-sounds-on-the-moon

My guess is the opposite, that the current videos of it around on YouTube are copied from an edited one that removed the sound. Unless we can find an original video recording we can't know what they aired and reran from 1970-2000 before the ISS and similar missions with work in space became more common and highlighted this obvious discrepancy.

>>10314975
ok i watched that part of the video

noise coming through comms != noise mysteriously traveling through space

>>10314947

Lol, so much this. If the entire scientific community is able to keep conspiring about the lunar landings (it's not just NASA, the Soviets have landed unmanned probes and returned samples and lunar meteorites can be found naturally on Earth) for decades, why would anyone even reveal the existence of Van Allen belts if their existence is supposedly 'proof' that moon landings were a hoax?

If you think the moon landing was staged then you're just ignorant. Children acting intelligent and completely throwing away the accomplishments of the human species. People like you all are why extraterrestrials steer clear of our dumb ass planet.

>>10315048
It's what happens when people suddenly gain access to instant and global communication and information through the internet without learning how to filter it properly. The conspiracy retards who spam their moon/ISS hoax stuff literally can't understand why some random YouTube schizo might be lying to them

>>10314716
The absolute brain capasity of >>>/x/

>>10314114
>How did they livestream the Moon Landing in 1969?
NASA had a large discretionary budget back then. Now most of their budget is tied up in mandatory operations.

>>10314253
Imagine shitting up every moon related thread by responding to babbys first troll like some shitty phpBB forum for barren catladies.

>>10314114
[Comment removed by the Central Intelligence Agency]

>>10314114
>How did they livestream the Moon Landing in 1969?

with radio waves

>Could we even do that today?

yes

>beyond the Van Allen Belt

irrelevant.

>>10315099
>Comment
You must go back

I have a conspiracy theory too.

I refuse to believe there are people so fucking retarded to not believe in the moon landing.

>>10314171
I recently visited France and didn't see any Americans.
America is a hoax.

>>10314233
>Dr. Bruce Banner
Kek

>open thread hoping to learn about transmitting technology
>get a complete clusterfuck
Well at least it motivated me to do my own research. It wasn't strictly live as the LEM transmitted to the CSM which only had LOS to earth about 50% of the time for an hour before going behind the moon for an hour. Footage was stored on the LEM until the CSM came into view then it was passed off to earth.
In the band used for video sending vital ship data to Earth, and there was no room left for the standard black-and-white video format of the era: 525 scan lines of data at 30 frames per second, transmitted at 4.5 MHz. So they developed an "oddball format" – 320 scan lines at 10 fps, transmitted at 500 kHz.

Anyone else remember the first 2 weeks on /sci/ when it was good?

>>10315017

Why is the noise coming through the comms precisely timed with the hammer strikes? The "thunk" when another object is hurled at the rover is also weird.

>>10315123

Why would you believe in it?

>>10315169

He's an expert in high energy radiation.

>>10315306

The footage was stored and delayed yet they had communications back and forth in real time with mission control? What?

>>10315328
not the rover the LEM, sorry

>>10315328
why couldn't the "thunk" be a sound wave just travelling through the astronaut's space suit and/or ground to the astronaut's microphone? just because there is no air doesn't mean the sound can't go through the solids

>>10315337
The audio was on the priority frequency used for telemetry but even that wasn't constant contact, everything was relayed via the CSM so when the CSM didn't have line of site to the LEM the ground got nothing.

>>10315340

In the second "thunk" I'm referring to the astronaut has no contact with the object, he just threw it at the LEM. The video explains that all mics inside the LEM are off.

As for the hammering, in the mission log the astronaut himself says he did not hear this sound inside his suit. Neither are such sounds picked up by astronauts working on the ISS. So basically, they fucked up. In an era where public scrutiny on sound in space wouldn't have mattered so much, they played with peoples' expectations and showed what would be most compelling to them.

>>10314169
>>10314165
>>10314171
>>10314185
>>10314283
>>10314357
>>10314253
>>10315331
The americans landed on the moon. Proof: The soviets would have stated landings were faked. Instead ( the topic was simply ignored, even in propaganda). The soviets knew the landing was true via radiotriangulation from the manned craft.

>>10315353
nah, i think you're trying too hard. i claim that even if you have a genuine "thunk" (which is questionable) the "sound propagates through solids" argument is a much more plausible explanation than whatever you're suggesting. even if the astronauts didn't hear it, the mic could easily still pick it up since the sound propagates directly into the microphone through the solids, instead of the sound needing to transmit into the air inside the astronaut's helmet for him to hear it. like when you tap a microphone softly it makes no audible sound but the mic goes KERBAPKTKTK

>>10315328
why should i humor your fucking mental diarrhea?

think about it yourself for a bit

>>10315363
>The soviets would have stated landings were faked.

Soviets lacked the technology to monitor it. Also they probably didn't blow the whistle due to political reasons - Americans also had dirt on their operations. It was mutual ransom.

>>10315381
nope, the soviets definitely checked our retroreflectors; that doesn't require ridiculous monitoring tech, just a decent laser

Holy shit, this thread is SO far off from OP's question, it's ridiculous

>>10315383
>our retroreflectors

And what part of that requires a manned mission?

>>10315394
I'm trying but it's a clusterfuck.
>>10315306

>>10315381

Lmao as if Soviets cared what USA had on them.

>>10315381
Pathetic. I expect a good troll post and I get this shit.
>Soviets lacked the technology to monitor it.
You mean they can an launch nukes and other shit but not build some radiostations?
> Also they probably didn't blow the whistle due to political reasons
Right, a the USSR actually cared about the relations to their ... sworn enemies. Okay.
> Americans also had dirt on their operations. It was mutual ransom.
And why would they cooperate? They almost nuked eachother.

>>10315397
do you believe in the lunar reconnaissance orbiter? if so look at pic related it took. you think that the rover drove itself around to leave all those tracks? what kind of self-driving-car tech did they equip the rover with? (LRRR in this pic is the retroreflector)

you're just a wacko dude, stop deluding yourself

>>10315337
they had periodic communication blackouts you fucking mong

>>10315353
>it's another "this guy said such-and-such" argument
shoot yourself, flattard

>>10315381
let me just pull some shit out of my arse with no evidence to back up my silly claims

BRRRAAP PARP BRRRRRT

there we go

>>10315394

>Pretending to be surprised a bait thread baited people

>>10315403
>You mean they can an launch nukes and other shit but not build some radiostations?

I mean they couldn't track such a small object in space, optically or otherwise. If anyone did I'd love to see footage or reports.

>>10315454
shit dude if only there were something aggregating such things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

>>10314129
Retard.

>>10315459
wow, wikipedia actually has a page about that. think about all the man-hours wasted on that by poor wikipedia authors just because of uneducated people falling for conspiracy schizo websites

>>10314207
They are donut shaped. They went around the thickest (most dangerous) areas of the belts using orbital inclination. If you weren't too retarded to use a search engine, you would know this already.

>>10315340
>>10315377
>>10315367
https://www.metabunk.org/apollo-16-external-noises.t10213/

>>10314357

>unscathed

They didn't - several Apollo astronauts reported radiation fucking with their eyesight as the illusion of lightning, as well as the correlation of moonwalking and risk of heart attack etc. You've also just answered another tinfoil ITT's question about why we haven't visited Mars yet - passing Van Allen belt unscathed is arguably the biggest obstacle.

>muh rocket fuel is an explosive

So is jetfuel kek, are 747's secretly launched from maglevs in some optical illusion?

>Guy in Iraq tried to build one, got killed

Gerard Bull was trying to give Saddam the capability to nuke any part of Israel &/or the Gulf kingdoms for a fraction of the cost and complexity of a ballistic missile, it made perfect sense for Mossad to kill him.

>muh slingshot

Would require ALL of the velocity to be applied on launch, which requires a greater initial energy than just gradually burning up. The friction reaction force (of Earth's atmosphere) to such an insanely high initial velocity would incinerate anything we'd try to put up into orbit, the materials don't exist yet for a heat-shield to withstand such temperatures.

The child is shooting a rock over a fence, not over a planet. That's like asking why skyscrapers aren't made out of twigs.

>muh medical racketeering

*Ignores how profitable/lucrative/valuable effective cancer treatments are*

>muh biblical allegory

I'm not the first person to tell you this isn't /x/

Honestly, it's so obvious that you're scientifically illiterate, and haven't even attempted to understand the basic principles of physics that you're trying to evoke in your arguments.

>>10314114
Digital electronics a shit. We should all go back to glorious analog.

>>10315498
/thread.

>>10314169
just a troll, nothing to see here, keep moving

>>10314171
About that, if they landed on the dark side of the moon, why wasn't it dark? Hmmm.

>>10315553
oh shit, space ETERNALLY BTFO! HOW WILL IT EVER EVER RECOVER????

>>10315553
It's not the dark side of the moon, it's the far side of the moon. Ever notice how the moon isn't always full?

>>10315560
b-but Pink Floyd?

>>10315553
whitey got there first.

>>10315466
>uneducated people

Where do you propose we get our education on this? Books and TV documentaries that don't supply primary evidence and address our concerns? There were no courses on moon landings at my university.

>>10315567
you don't need to take a class on the moon landings. rather, getting an education, especially an undergrad education, is as much about learning particular subjects taught in particular classes as it is about learning how to think for yourself in the capacity of identifying crap information and being able to filter schizo crap from actual facts

i'll bet you on 9 out of 10 moon-conspiracy websites, if you click far enough it eventually leads to "masons" or "illuminati" or "satanic cults". right there, an educated person would say "nope." OTOH anyone who continues to follow the crumbs of misinformation further inevitably ends up believing in all the conspiracy theories, from moon hoax to CERN-is-a-portal to pizzagate to 911 conspiracies. that's because people incapable of filtering misinformation are gullible and the more they believe in schizo shit, the less grip on reality they have left.

>>10315580
Dude I'm great at filtering information from bullahit sources. I've seen the footage, the footage doesn't hold up, period

>>10315583
>I'm great at filtering information from bullahit sources

>>10315567
you keep presenting "YEAH BUT HOW DOES X WHEN Y" questions one after another like they're fucking evidence of a massive conspiracy theory. perhaps if you were better educated you would know HOW DOES X

>>10315580
>if you click far enough it eventually leads to "masons" or "illuminati" or "satanic cults".

Nice strawman.

How about you watch the video here instead.

>>10314183

Ignoring the stupid homemade music he points out some real oddities, like the bags swinging by themselves.

>>10315590
>thinks this is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP2GdhmPWXo

>>10315580
>because people incapable of filtering misinformation

Again, a lot of projection. I finished my undergrad years ago, literally working on my PhD in a subfield of CS right now. Cope. This credentialism really has no relevance in the face of convincing evidence and arguments though.

>>10315617
I suppose they attached wires to all the dust particles too, yeah?

>>10315622
>in a subfield of CS
It's ok anon, we already knew you were a brainlet

>>10315623
>thinks it's dust

>>10315615
dude watch this video

just watch this video dude

and this one dude

>>10315617
around 3:18 in this video is the best clip

the guy falls and the other astronaught comes and messes with something on his head for like twenty seconds, then the guys feet fly from behind him and he lands upwards

>>10315622
>CS
kek

>>10315622
>convincing evidence

>>10315641
ah yes "messes with something on his head"

fake!!!

>>10315639

There are only three videos linked and referred to so far this entire thread.

You're the kind of person that sees a magic trick and thinks it really happened. No capacity for critical thinking outside the box or imagination whatsoever.

>>10315646
dude what the hell is going on there then? the guys falls down, cant get up, the other dude comes and messes with his his head for like 10 seconds and then the guys flies upwards...? obviously on strings dude

>>10315643

What's your degree in, sport?

>>10315650
i cannot conceive of it with my small mind, so it is fake

>>10315653
it's fake, like you said. fake!!!

>>10315658
i accept everything i am told, so it is real

The problem is I can conceive of it and all the relevant conditions, and that's what makes it so implausible.

>>10315641
Yeah, they would also be able to jump up way easier than they do if they were actually in 1/6th earth's gravity. They'd be able to jump really high, and they never do in the footage, despite clearly using a lot of their strength to jump and get up.

>>10315675
>despite clearly using a lot of their strength to jump and get up.
???

let's just ban this guy. we had another thread here like i donno a week or two ago and we discussed exactly that stupid moment in that stupid video, let me find it:
>>/sci/thread/S10132854
>keep in mind that gravity is very weak on the moon; he pushed himself up with his hand on the other astronaut and a little push with his hand on the ground

>>10315672
you can't conceive of it particularly well if you know fuck all about what is involved. and the questions you've been asking (by the way, questions are not arguments and they're not evidence either), you know fuck all about what is incolved.

>>10315688
So what was the other Astro doing to his helmet for like 10 secs before he got up? And why did his feet fly up backwards as he was "getting up"

>>10315707
just go home, you're wrong and annoying. stop shilling.

>>10315711
You are the one shilling for the government dude. What's your perogative to do so?

>>10315707
look mummy i asked another question, therefore the moon landings are FAKE

>>10315681
They struggle to get up, and the footage of them jumping they barely get off the ground, when it should be extremely easy.

>>10315720
O K

>>10315720
https://youtu.be/x2adl6LszcE
Look at 1:34, doesn't look difficult at all.

>>10315720
Jump too low? "Why aren't they jumping really high when it's low gravity? Fake."
Jump too high? "Why are they jumping really high when they're in space? If they got just a single pinprick in their spacesuits they'd fucking EXPLODE TO DEATH INSTANTLY. Fake."

>>10315722
Good.
>>10315726
Should be jumping 4+ feet high easily.
>>10315738
Salty brainlet.

>>10315745
>Should be jumping 4+ feet high easily
By what measure?

>>10315414
schizo still hasn’t explained this

>>10315745
i agree, they should have been aiming to sprain ankles on the moon or break bones. really, jump as high as possible. climb on top of the LM and jump. make a massive hill out of moon regolith and jump off it. you should be jumping really fucking high, because you're in low gravity. otherwise it's fake. it's fucking blatant fakery. fake!!!

>>10315751
Weighing 80 pounds with same strength muscles as on earth, no air resistance.
>>10315767
Super salty mooncucklet.

>>10315753
How thick are those tracks?

>>10315789
they check out, try harder

>>10315784
very smallbrain credulous contrarian

>>10315745
Hard to jump in a stiff and bulky space suit.

>>10315790
>they check out
Jej, sure kid. How thick are they?

>>10315403
>Right, a the USSR actually cared about the relations to their ... sworn enemies. Okay.
>And why would they cooperate? They almost nuked eachother.
Because it benefitted each of them, allegedly.
I'm not taking a position on the moonlanding itself, but this objection is Reddit-tier, and betrays an ignorance in relation to how cold-war era politics worked.
>sworn enemies.
Nixon went to China, and Ho Chi Min called the White House to congragulate them on the moon landing. They were ideologically and geopolitically opposed, but that isn't the same as some deep, personal rivalry that overrides cost-benefit analysises.
>>10315402
Your smugness rests on the fact popular opinion rides with you. Your position isn't actually the big-brained one.

>>10315784
>Weighing 80 pounds with same strength muscles as on earth, no air resistance.
Ok, now how does that support your 4+ feet claim? I want to see some actual maths done here. Keep in mind that they are wearing bulky suits and cannot squat down fully to achieve maximum jump height

>>10315791
How much money did Buzz claim for expenses to the moon brainlet?

>>10315466
>uneducated people
Read a book hurr durr.
We arrive at knowledge by asking questions.
There's literally nothing wrong with someone not believing the moonlanding didn't happen, as long as they're willing to back their position up with evidence and logical argument.
Putting your faith in the authority of 'the educated,' is a religious mindset. You trust the people above you to hand you down the truth, and mistrust all others.
>No, I just hate ignorance.
Clearly, this isn't the case, or you wouldn't be upset by the fact Wikipedia has a page on this. To you, asking questions is an offense.
You don't belong on /sci.

>>10315796
Weak kid, weak.

I like how the schizo hasn't actually provided any proof of fakery and can only ask vague rhetorical questions in lieu of an actual argument

>>10315799
>allegedly
yeah you just alleged it. allegedly you're gay.

>I'm not taking a position on the moonlanding itself
you're been making massive poos for hours

>>10315810
another random shit arse tangent

fake moon!!

>>10315811
you haven't come up with any evidence you mushy brained cunt swab

>>10315811
>back their position up with evidence
What evidence? At best, you're an annoying contrarian. At worst, a retard who actually believes that we didn't go to the moon

>>10315808
Full extension they'd be able to jump over 10 feet easily (these are very fit astronauts). With a suit, 4 feet (less than half extension) should be possible.

>>10315617

Compelling! Everyone ITT should watch this before posting. Since so much manned moon landing "evidence" is visual video evidence is essential to the story.

>>10315814
>t. moon schizo can't answer a simple question

>>10315819
>>10315815
>>10315821
Read my other post:>>10315799
Where have I said the moonlanding didn't happen? Don't I implicitly acknowledge the moonlanding probably happened by throwing in that comment on Ho Chi Min?
What's you guy's deal? Why does someone disagreeing with the orthodoxy bother you?
>What evidence?
Whatever they've posted so far, I assume you've read the thread.
>Their evidence is hardly impressive
Then what's bothering you? Post your evidence, explain your position, and get an easy win.

>>10315815
>another random shit arse tangent
Answer the question landingfag

>>10315830
Moar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJPMr2UteA

>>10315635

What's your degree in, sport?

>>10315829
Proof?

>>10315830
yes speeding up footage is very compelling you shit samefag

alright you win the entire argument. explain again how it was the masons? what else do they control?

>>10315867
G/G’=(Mr^2)/mR^2

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

Holy shit

>>10315879
thats a ratio, not proof.

>>10315879
Nice equation, now provide proof for your claim.

>>10315878
What's this?

>>10315884
https://www.metabunk.org/apollo-16-external-noises.t10213

>>10315884
"please help, i do not know what a microphone is"

>>10315884
Got'em

>>10315891
Why does this have significance?

>>10315888
>>10315889
Already done brainlets.

>>10315898
Was it taken to the "moon"?

>>10315899
please point to where you conclude that they should easily be able to clear 10 ft.

>>10315901
What do the reptilians have to do with all this?

>>10315905
That's without a suit dingbat. It's 6 times regular earth jump which is on average about 2 feet, minus some feet due to not being able to generate as much force off of the surface of the moon due to less weight.

>>10315907
Don't worry about it. And no, I'm not doing the illuminati eye of Horus, I just like doing this pose.

>>10315920
where does this conclusion come from?

>>10315930
Intelligence.

>>10315920
>calculation involves a range of less than 10ft
>minus some feet
>some feet
Imagine thinking this is an acceptable standard of evidence

>>10315893

You mean the mic is picking up the sounds from the studio atmosphere?

>>10315923
No srsly Buzz, redpill me on reptilians.

>>10315907
fackin luv a bit of schizophrenia, me

simple as

>>10315940
hang on, why do you even think they were jumping as high as they possibly can?

at the moment the moon fakery bullshit is resting on "why aint they jumpin high enough???"

it's not looking good

>>10315943
sound cannot propagate through solids!! fake!!

>>10315940
im sorry, that is no conclusion. you need to back up your claim with more than just a ratio.

>>10315942
Can't do the calculations brainlet? I can do them blindfolded. Step it up shitlord.

>>10315943
Debunked here already
>>10315892

>>10315944
https://newspunch.com/buzz-aldrin-warns-danger-evil/

>>10315955
>what is burden of proof
sorry sweetie, not my problem

>>10315950
>hang on, why do you even think they were jumping as high as they possibly can?
They don't need to be.
>at the moment the moon fakery bullshit is resting on "why aint they jumpin high enough???"

>it's not looking good
Only wishful thinking brainlets would say that. This is just another nail in the coffin among millions of others.

>>10315961
>links to some forum discussing it

Where was it debunked? Paste it.

>>10315962
oh nice website Buzz, i see their headline today is pizzagate. redpill me on hillary eating babies now

>>10315964
Show your calcs landingfag.

>>10315944

Is that the knife he used to sacrifice babies for stem cells so he could walk again?

>>10315973
>They don't need to be.
but duhh they should have cleared 10 feet easy

i see

>nail in the coffin
you were just saying "i never claimed fakery" fag

>>10315979
yours first, baitboi

>>10315977
133:03:08 Bean: Okay. In this kind of pack you could almost drive it without a hammer; but, if you’ll hand it (the hammer) to me, I’ll…

133:03:11 Conrad: Yeah, just a second.

133:03:14 Bean: I want to take a couple more shots (that is, photos) of this before we leave. (Pause) There. (Pause) Okay.

133:03:28 Conrad: Get it all the way in (and) I’ll get the pictures.

133:03:30 Bean: All right. (The sound of hammering is audible) It’s driving in real easy, Houston.

[Bean – “I didn’t know that (they could hear the hammering in Houston)!”]

[Conrad – “That’s neat!”]

[Bean – “Coming through my hand, I guess…”]

[Conrad – “Yeah, it’s coming through your hand and getting into the air in the suit and it’s transmitting all the way (to the microphones).”]

[Bean – “Isn’t that something.”]

[Jones – “Now, you had the Snoopy helmets on over your ears.”]

[Conrad – “Yeah, but the microphones are out here (in front of their lips). I never heard that before, either. You can hear you hammering just loud and clear.”]

[Bean – “I would have said it wasn’t possible.”]


Conrad - "The other guy can't hear it. Did you hear yourself hammering?"]

[Bean - "I don't remember. I was so concentrated...The problem with hammering is that...Well, I'm a good carpenter, but you can't come straight down (with your arm in the suit). That's why they made the hammer bigger and everybody used the side. You can't do a nice smooth swing. You get it going (straight down) and then the cable cuts in and moves it over. So you try to adjust your swing and then you miss. Lot of missing."]

>>10315950

Why doesn't the sound propagate like that for the ISS astronauts when they're using power tools? It's complete silence.

>>10315978
https://www.space.com/39957-jeff-bezos-blue-origin-explorers-club.html

>>10315987
>You get it going (straight down) and then the cable cuts in and moves it over.
>the cable

Is he referring to the cables holding them up for the fake moon gravity?

>>10315979
>your calcs
What calcs?

>>10315985
12mv2f+mghf=12mv20+mgh0

>>10315988
Any videos of the ISS astronauts using hammers with no sound?

>>10315987
there are noises when people throw things against the ship even though there is no connection with the microphones

>>10315988
maybe it does. maybe it's not complete silence. maybe comms are noise gated on the ISS. maybe comms have a push-to-talk mode.

did you not know sound propagates through solids though?

>>10316006
"there's no connection with the microphones" because you say there is

>>10316007
the point is that it doesn't happen when ISS astronaut's hammer

>>10315984
>but duhh they should have cleared 10 feet easy
WITHOUT A SUIT BRAINLET.
>you were just saying "i never claimed fakery" fag
I'm someone else who belongs to the sane majority who knows the moon landings were fake as fuck. You are the schizo minority in 2019.

>>10315988
If they're using the type of mic setup that only transmits when they speak then the mics may not be configured to be sensitive enough to open the channel when an external noise is transmitted through the suit

>>10316002

It's in the video here >>10314183. Skip around, you will find it. I'm on phone so I can't find the specific segment.

>>10316012
maybe it does though

>>10316010
what? the spaceship isn't attached to their suit at all? unless you are talking about it propagating through the moons surface lol

>>10315987
No way they sound like that if the suit was dampening the sound. Load of bullshit.

>>10315992
oh crap, let me fill in the logical dots here:
>Bezos eats baby meat supplied by Hillary/Soros
>calls it "Iguana meat" as a nod to the Reptilians funding Buzz
am i on the right track? or did NASA funnel the funding to the Templars again?

>>10315997
Moon jump calcs.

>>10314465

Goddammit I've been linking to the wrong video this whole time. Fuck you to whoever posted that. This is it.

>>10316013
>the sane majority who knows the moon landings were fake as fuck
Okay, schizo

>>10316019
>No way they sound like that if the suit was dampening the sound
Isn't the video you linked an amplified version of the audio though?

>>10316028
the guy is fucking braindead

>>10316015
you are linking to the wrong video dude

>>10316015
>>10316014

See this video instead
>>10316024

Sorry for the mislinks earlier

This Jef Wintzer video is great

>>10316002
See >>10316033 sorry

>>10316033
>>10316040
>FIFTY FOUR minutes
Yeah I'm gonna need a timestamp

>>10316020
On the right track. Bezos has been accepted into the Reptilian order by Buzz. Bezos honoured the Order by eating the body of a reptile in a ritual.

>>10316025
Only schizos believe there was no disturbance to the regolith beneath the lander because schizo reasons.

>>10316049
ah, checks out 100%. i'm not seeing the pizzagate connection any more though, i thought you said pizzagate was part of the story?

>>10314114

it's fake

>>10316056
That's Neil Armstrong. He was the first man to bring a baby to the moon.

>>10316048
starts at around forty minutes, its the last segment

>>10316055
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html
>3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.

>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.

Take your meds, schizo

>>10314114
SSTV

>>10316048
>>10316002

Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsH2M4m4zM#t=43m48s

>>10316088
Oh look, it's the schizo excuses, right on time.

You know what actually makes sense? They just dropped the lander onto a set using a crane.

>>10316104
Nice rebuttal, schizo. Are you going to produce some equations showing that the thrust from the lander should've broken down the solid rock?

>>10316103
Again, can be explained by voice-gated mics and the fact that the whir of a power drill does not produce the same impulse as the strike of a hammer.

>>10316116
what about when he throws a wire and it hits the ship making a loud clinking sound..?

>>10316120
What about it?

>>10316124
are you saying it reverberated throw the moons surface up to his suit?

>>10316125
Timestamp?

>>10316108
At the very least there should be scorch marks, as well as clear evidence of regolith disturbance. Occam's razor is on my side, not your schizo side.

>Video transmission

This is the thing that made me realize it was all fake. We can barely get a cell phone signal in the country side and you want me to believe we got a signal from the moon lol.

>>10316128

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsH2M4m4zM#t=48m52s

Why don't you just watch the video?

>>10316137
you realize that they allegedly had a live phonecall with president nixon from the moon?

>>10316135
>At the very least there should be scorch marks
Why? Are you going to actually do calculations or are you going to keep pulling assumptions out of your ass?
>Occam's razor
kek the amount of assumptions that are required to make a moon hoax seem plausible is immense

please, Buzz and other /x/tards, just spam this thread a little more so it will die. you guys ruin everything

>>10316139
Do you have an original source on that video from NASA? What makes you think the wire hitting the lander is what's making that sound?
>>10316137
>We can barely get a cell phone signal in the country side and you want me to believe we got a signal from the moon lol.
Cell phone infrastructure doesn't use powerful satellite arrays, brainlet. It uses cell towers.

>>10315494
>So is jetfuel kek, are 747's secretly launched from maglevs in some optical illusion?
There was some dude either on here or /k/ who argued pretty much that

>>10316148
>do you have an original source on that video

Hmm well maybe, depends if it was included in the footage "lost" by NASA

>ITT: /x/tards don't realize that making an extraordinary claim requires at least some evidence

>>10316163
A verified source from one of the original broadcasters will suffice if you can't find the original tapes from NASA

>>10316143
Heat from rocket + rock = scorch marks

Does that compute schizo?
>kek the amount of assumptions that are required to make a moon hoax seem plausible is immense
Jej - far, far more to believe they actually happened. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a serious amount of smoke that you're inhaling while trying to ignore it.

>>10316172
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-burn-mark-under-the-lunar-module-descent-engine-Im-no-conspiracist-but-I-ask-out-of-genuine-curiosity-Why-are-the-rocks-under-the-nozzle-not-at-all-discolored-singed-or-burned-or-at-least-residue-from-the-hypergolic-fuel-burn
>The combustion products of Aerozine-5050and Nitrogen Tetroxide were mostly Water Vapour (H2OH2O), Nitrogen (N2N2), Carbon Monoxide (COCO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2CO2) and Hydrogen (H2H2) - none of which are ‘dirty’

>The lunar surface isn’t particularly susceptible to singeing. It is dust that has been pulverized by millenia of volcanic activity or violent meteor impact. On Earth, things like grass and trees and fresh paintwork can be ‘messed-up’ by a rocket exhaust, but Lunar regolith is made of sterner stuff! Plus, of course, we’ve already established the the Descent Engine was not a big threat anyway.

Can you provide some evidence that would suggest there SHOULD be scorch marks?

>>10315726
>these yahoos just having a gigglefest on the moon
I'm incredibly jealous

>>10316172
>far, far more to believe they actually happened.
Please list them, because you'd need to assume that the Russians were in on it (during the cold war), everyone involved in the program was "in on it", the Japanese were "in on it" (SELENE scans), and pretty much every geologist or scientist who has come into contact with actual lunar samples (inb4 muh petrified wood, that was one sample that was most likely stolen) were "in on it"

>>10316189
These are just some assumptions I've made off the top of my head that you'd be required to make in order to give your hoax hypothesis any hope of succeeding

>>10316183
>Look at all these assumptions and convenient excuses to cover up yet more bullshit
What do NASA have to say on the matter?

>>10316207
What assumption? It's a documented fact as to which chemicals were used in the descent propulsion system. These chemicals are still used in rockets and ICBMs to this day.

>>10316189
>you'd need to assume that the Russians were in on it (during the cold war)
The entire "cold war" was fake brainlet, how naive are you?
>everyone involved in the program was "in on it"
Brainlet fallacy.

The pro-Apollo crowd will go to almost any lengths to keep their moonlanding mythology alive. From misrepresenting opponents’ positions, debunking non-existent claims, presenting arguments they know are invalid (and hoping you don’t), ignoring key arguments and critical evidence, presenting farcical explanations for the numerous photographic and other anomalies, quote mining, bashing opponents’ long-since-corrected mistakes, lodging fraudulent copyright and privacy claims to get videos pulled, using ridicule in place of argument, character assassinations, and – when all else fails – outright lying. You name it, they’ll do it!

>>10316221
The assumption that "lunar regolith" isn't susceptible to singeing, when it's not even the lunar regolith we're talking about.

What do NASA have to say about it?

>>10316268
>The entire "cold war" was fake brainlet, how naive are you?

>>10316164
>/x/tards don't realize that making an extraordinary claim requires at least some evidence

Extraordinary claim like we landed on the moon?

>>10316270
All those words and not a single argument backed up with evidence. Impressive.

>>10316141
Lmao imagine being a fat amerilard trucker boomer that actually believes this

>>10316275
You tell me, it's up to you to prove that there WOULD have been singeing.

>>10316282
What was so impossible about Nixon communicating with the astronauts?

>>10316276
Get a clue brainlet, stop falling for 60's propaganda, it's embarrassing.

>>10316278
That perhaps the greatest human achievement in history so far was completely faked, not a single person involved has said anything, every country at the time was in on the cover-up, and nobody has come forth as of yet with convincing evidence (including you). To do all this would almost be as impressive as actually going to the moon.

>>10316167
>>10316148

There probably is one but I'm on phone. The hammer video I verified to be legit. There's a bunch of others from the Apollo Project YT channel. The transcripts confirm they heard the hammering in Houston. Again keep in mind NASA has been scrubbing everything that gives them bad optics from the Internet. Probably anything from "official" channels has had the shit doctored out of it. What you want is archived footage from the earliest broadcasts.

>>10316293
Not an argument. Prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that the Cold War was a hoax

>>10316297
>The transcripts confirm they heard the hammering in Houston
We were talking about the cable hitting the lander, not the hammering

>>10316294

The first tanks were constructed by the British with the workers not knowing way they were building - hence the name "tanks", because that's what they were told. It's a similar situation here. Only people on a need to know basis would know what's really going on.

>>10316309
and that's a limited subset of people.

>>10316309
So the engineers at NASA spent years designing parts that, when put together, would form a functional rocket capable of transporting people and objects on the moon, which the high up honchos then "launched" without the astronauts actually inside, meanwhile the astronauts were actually on a soundstage faking the moon landing while the functional rocket was simply sent unmanned up into space?

>>10316309
Yes, a cover up that lasted less than a year (That was already uncovered by the Germans) is totally the same thing as something that the whole world was watching being covered up for almost half a century now.

>>10316281
There are two scenarios that we have to consider. On one hand we have missions in which the Apollo astronauts stayed in low earth orbit (Apollo 10 for example), and on the other hand we have missions in which the crews stayed on the ground the entire time (such as Apollo 15).

In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission. In the event that any independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the unmanned moon craft.

In the Apollo 15 scenario, the astronauts went up the gantry elevator and boarded their capsule. Then prior to launch they got out and went back down the elevator or, quite possibly, down the emergency chute to the blast shelter under the launch site. They were then picked up by NASA and went into hiding at a military base for the duration of the mission.

>>10316303

I know I was just reminding of the legitimacy of that one. I imagine this one is legitimate as well but you'll have to do your own search for it, I'm on phone. I'm not some moon hoax nut who has clips saved, I've seen what I need to see.

>>10316135
real life is not a movie

>>10316316
So they constructed this incredibly elaborate hoax (of which you have no evidence for), all the while they could send an ACTUAL telecommunications relay satellite to the moon instead of just sending the astronauts to the moon?

>>10316137
i saw you post this fucking months ago

get a life

>>10316321
>I imagine this one is legitimate as well but you'll have to do your own search for it
Nope, it's not up to me to provide a verifiable source for potential hoax "proof"

>>10316299
The reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since the Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times: the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons of wheat in return for silence.

>>10316328
Meanwhile the Saturn V was launched unmanned and jettisoned into the South Atlantic. All the voices and videos came from scripted pre-recorded tapes that the NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) relayed over the landlines to Houston. An unmanned cislunar probe was used to broadcast identical signals for any independent party who tried to listen in.

Evidence that the Apollo 15 crew stayed on the ground can be found in the fact that the in-flight television transmissions from that flight show no evidence that the crews are in space. It only shows the astronauts standing around in the LM with their backs to the camera. Unlike the videos from Apollo 10 and 11, on Apollo 15 the only hints of zero gravity are few and far between and only last thirty seconds or less. These scenes were clearly pulled off by loading a CSM/LM mock-up into a KC-135 ‘Vomit Comet’, which was used to train astronauts for zero gravity by performing 30 second parabolic dives.

When it was time to return, the astronauts were loaded into a command module which was then air dropped over the splashdown site by a C5A transport plane [Fig-1]. During Bill Kaysing’s interview on KOME radio, an airline pilot called in to say that he saw the Apollo 15 command capsule dumped out the back of a C5A above the Pacific.

>>10316338

>>10316327
Exactly schizo.

>>10316338
Literally not a single piece of evidence in your entire post. It's 100% baseless conjecture. Are you even trying at this point?

>>10316346
explain how lunar regolith or lunar stone should "singe" or exactly what combustion product from the descent engine should appear as soot

>>10316350
Another smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

>>10316343
that's the wrong shape to be a CSM. it's rather more like this.

>>10316364
Why don't you provide some evidence of anything you said here >>10316338 before you spam any more baseless conjecture?

>>10316350
The framerate of the Apollo 11 telecast is not what NASA claimed it was. NASA claims that the only television camera that recorded the Apollo 11 EVA was a B&W non-interlaced Westinghouse camera that ran at 10fps. As this framerate is lower than both conventional television framerates of PAL (25fps, interlaced) or NTSC (30fps, interlaced), the video allegedly received by the DSN and MSFN needed to be converted to NTSC. NASA says that this was done by pointing an NTSC TV camera at a screen that displayed the 10fps feed. The unfiltered 10fps was recorded on 1inch reels, but only the 2inch reel containing the NTSC conversion have survived.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that at least 24fps (cinema) is sufficient to show fluent motion. Framerates lower than 24fps, especially as low as 10fps, will appear very jumpy. Because fourteen important frames of natural motion are missing. Additionally, in a 10fps to 30fps conversion, the motion on screen would update only once every three frames. Because the camera pointed to the screen would have recorded the same display three times.

Frame by frame analysis of the digital transfers of NASA’s 2inch reels however reveal this not to be the case. The motion of the astronauts’ movement is very smooth and not jumpy at all. And frames update not once every three frames, but four out of every five frames with the odd one out being an overlay of the frames before and after. This clearly indicates that the Apollo 11 EVA video playback speed was not 10fps but 24fps. Meaning the EVA was shot with a camera that reportedly was not in the Apollo 11 crews possession during the time they were supposedly on the moon.

>>10316364
omg fake

>>10316354
>explain how lunar regolith or lunar stone should "singe"
Rocket = hot
Hot + rock = singe

>>10316369
>please explain deinterlacing and sampling theory to me, moonfags

>>10316365
Same shape.

>>10316373
nope, incorrect
you have obviously never played with fuel-oxy torches and rocks

>>10316373
facebook-tier chemistry at work, i see

>>10316338
>>10316364
>>10316369
>gets BTFO
>starts spouting baseless conjecture
>continues spouting nonsense when challenged for evidence of his claims
Pretty embarrassing thread for hoaxfags

>>10316373
WHY AINT THE BASALT SINGED

>>10316379
it's nowhere near as fat as the CSM you mong

>>10316368
Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [fig-2]. The same is true for the mineralogy:

“The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils. The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.”

Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth - 'DaG 872' being a good example.

>>10316381
You've obviously never been on the moon.

>>10316384
Do you need it simplified it further or does the logic make sense now?

>>10316392
Kek the only source reverse image search shows for this is "moonfaker.com"
Provide sources or fuck off you deluded schizo

>>10316385
You're getting absolutely BTFO. Landing schizos will never recover, trying to save face by claiming 'baseless conjecture' while ignoring the evidence.

>>10316394
according to NASA, lunar basalt is fairly similar to earth basalt
earth basalt doesn't really change colors after a heat/cool cycle, even in the extremely reactive atmosphere of earth
>>10316399
I've seen similar graphs from reliable sources, I'll believe that graph. The exciting bit is how much fucking titanium there is on the moon.

>>10316402
>evidence
>literal made-up graphs from "moonfaker.com"

>>10316399
Brainlet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17768913

>>10316409
shut the fuck up, that graph is legit
I'm trying to find it right now
here's an interesting article: https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/letss/mare3.pdf

>>10316409
Get wrecked more moon schizo.

>>10316417
>>10316420
>>10316422
>implying it's my job to verify your graphs for you
Not how it works

>>10316417
>paywalled paper

>>10316432
>Landingfags are too poor to pay for science papers

>>10316456
>implying you paid for it either

>>10316470
Rek'd

>>10316482
Show proof of purchase faggot. I'm betting you got it free through college.

>>10316315

Considering all the other things the US govt covered up its not implausible

WHY AINT THE BASALT SINGED

IF I BURN PLASTIC WITH ME LIGHTER IT GETS ALL SCORCHED LIKE

EXPLAIN THAT!!!

>>10316314

This.

>>10316335
It is if you're interested in finding out the truth for yourself instead of relying on others to spoonfeed you. On phone I can only show you the door. But you don't care about the truth, you just want to defend "your" position like some autist.

>>10317837
you can tell if a moon rock has fallen through the atmosphere

>>10317838
It's been 13 fucking hours mate. "I'm on a phone" doesn't cut it anymore. Provide the evidence or fuck right off, it's not my job to verify your evidence for you.

>>10317838
>"your" position
You mean the global consensus that almost everyone who isn't a total nutjob holds?

>>10317851
>It's been 13 fucking hours mate. "I'm on a phone" doesn't cut it anymore.

I know the concept is inconceivable to you, but I slept over at a girl's place.

>>10317866
>thinking pretending to have a girlfriend will strengthen his argument
>on 4chan of all places
You have to go back.

>>10317868

You've already been proven wrong on the hammering/ISS astronauts. You're not even curious to investigate for yourself?

>>10317868
>girlfriend
beta cuck tier

it's called getting laid, try it some time, virgo

>>10317881
>You've already been proven wrong on the hammering/ISS astronauts
Where did you prove me wrong?

>>10317882
>implying you've ever touched a woman that wasn't your own mother/sister
keep dreaming kiddo

>>10317884

When nother source for the videos was posted and the official mission logs and commentary.

>>10315987

>>10318104
That was my post. It explains why the mic picked up the noise of the hammering. I'm asking where you to provide verification of the cable noise, dumbass.

>>10318128
I'm asking you to provide*

>>10318128
>It explains

Yeah, it "explains" it if you have the naive mind of a 5 year old. To me it just highlights that they're trying to cover their asses.

>>10318146
What's so unbelievable about the explanation?