/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11050178]

Who here in their right mind aknowledge the fact apollo mission went to the moon?

[Anonymous No.11050201]

>>11050178
How can you land on a hologram?

[Anonymous No.11050204]

>>11050178
>he believes that the moon exists

[Anonymous No.11050208]

Do you actually have a valid source for both pictures or is it another retarded gif we are supposed to take at face value?

[Anonymous No.11050249]

>>11050208
The numbers in the upper right corner correspond to actual photos taken on Apollo 17 and they do seem to match what's in the gif. However what I think is happening is that both images have the same mountain in the background, but are at different locations that are on the same side of the mountain. Without the atmosphere to distort distant objects (along with some resizing due to trying to align the mountain in both images) and no other identifiers of location in neither image, it makes the illusion that both images were taken at the same exact location. I don't have time to verify this however.

Image numbers for easier look up.
AS17-136-20685
AS17-147-22527

[Anonymous No.11050287]

>>11050178
depends on which apollo we are talking about?

[Anonymous No.11050293]

>>11050178
Do not feed.

[Anonymous No.11050301]

>>11050249
>>11050178
>dude what the fuck is focal length

[Anonymous No.11050309]

>>11050301
>along with some resizing due to trying to align the mountain in both images
I kinda covered that already. I'm not OP btw.

[Anonymous No.11050318]

>>11050249
>AS17-147-22527
the original photo is black and white and looks nothing like the other one so op is a faggot as usual

[Anonymous No.11050727]

>>11050178
The mountain in the background is miles and miles and miles away, it just looks close upbecause there's no atmosphere on the moon to give distance clues like in pic.
That's why it doesn't budge even though the foreground changed.

[Anonymous No.11050742]

>>11050727
also, the photos in the gif are not the originals, it looks like they were colour corrected to look more similar to eachother than they actually are, the originals were taken with completely different cameras.
Interesting how the same conspiratards that accuse nasa of faking shit feel the need to edit the truth.

Here are the unmodified ones:

[Anonymous No.11050746]

>>11050742

[Anonymous No.11050757]

>>11050742
look at the pile of rocks behind the lander

its probably a closeup of one of those on the other pic

[Anonymous No.11050931]

>>11050742
I mean, if OPs allegation was true then it paints a funny picture about the conspiracy.
>able to forge millions of highly technical documents
>somehow fool workers into believing that they're making moon equipment
>keep the mouths of thousands of insiders shut even on their deathbeds
>create a whole array of technologies that perfect come off a moon mission without actually having one
>make weeks worth of film of the missions themselves without any signs of tampering nor fakery
>generate tons of scientific data that's so good it fools scientists who aren't in on it
>be in control of international relations
>maybe even somehow be orchestrating the entire Cold War
>yet somehow misses using the same backdrop twice where it doesn't make sense

[Anonymous No.11051088]

>>11050178
The Moon is a vehicle that can be driven through portals to other parts of space. That's what the youtube ads have been telling me anyway

[Anonymous No.11051330]

>>11050178
Here is Apollo 17 landing site. Gee, I wonder why some large imposing hill is in the background of some of the photos.

[Anonymous No.11051896]

>>11050249
>AS17-136-20685
>>11050746
That image is part of a panorama

[Anonymous No.11051913]

>>11050727
Yeah people dont realize that is Mons Hadley - a 15000 foot peak. Its huge and far away. It isnt just some fucking hill

[Anonymous No.11051916]

It really won’t matter when we go abck in a few years. Hopefully they’ll set up a laser beacon or something the world can see.

[Anonymous No.11051917]

>>11051913
Okay altitude wise it is 15000’ but maybe only 5000’ of prominence, but still, this isnt just some tiny hill

[Anonymous No.11052267]

This image gives a better sense of the overall scale, taken from about 1 mile away from the lander

[Anonymous No.11052342]

>>11050301
>optics

[Anonymous No.11052798]

>>11050201
with a holoprojector, duh

[Anonymous No.11052806]

>>11052267
this, the lack of landmarks or atmosphere makes it very hard to discern size from a still

[Anonymous No.11052852]

>>11050178
Learn basic photography you absolute retard.

[Anonymous No.11052862]

>>11052852
>moon hoaxer
>not being retarded
You expect too much, anon...

[Anonymous No.11052946]

>>11052267
>>11052806
Is it weird that these images instill a sort of vertiginous sensation? I think it's just because of the clarity and lack of any sky, I probably wouldn't make a good astronaut, I'd get space euphoria or something.

[Anonymous No.11052975]

>>11050178

Why not go look at the original iamges:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?17

[Anonymous No.11052980]

>>11052946
yeah, the pitch blackness from exposure is a bit offputting, and it doesn't help that the regolith colour just kinda blends altogether in one flowing sweep too. Consider that it's also a very alien and unfamiliar environment for us to be looking at anyway

[Anonymous No.11054067]

>>11051330
Pretty detailed map of the landing site
https://www.google.com/moon/#lat=20.212401&lon=30.653052&zoom=11&apollo=a17/17

[Anonymous No.11054801]

>>11051913
>Mons Hadley
Actually it's the South Massif of the Taurus–Littrow valley.

Mons Hadley is associated with Apollo 15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Hadley

[Anonymous No.11055814]

View of site from orbit.

[Anonymous No.11055832]

All technology has advanced rapidly in the past 50 years except space travel.

Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.11055912]

>>11055832
That's false. Spaceflight technology has advanced considerably since Apollo. Closed cycle engines are more widespread. Miniaturization and improvement of electronics allowed for smallsats to be developed and allowed for flyback boosters to be possible. Carbon fiber composites is more widespread. Additive manufacturing of various components such as turbine blades and injector manifolds are reducing the cost and improving reliability of engines overall. Spaceflight has advanced.

The reason why it hasn't appeared to have changed as much as other industries is that it's a very small industry. The SLSs, perhaps the most expensive modern rocket, $30B development cost is pocket change compared to large projects in other industries. There isn't a huge drive in spaceflight to really push innovation. Apollo was a freak event compared to the trends that both preceded it and followed it.

[Anonymous No.11055939]

>>11050178
botanists would try to convince you that trees exist

[Anonymous No.11055941]

>>11055912
>t-there's just no interest
convenient

[Anonymous No.11055942]

>>11055939
forests don't exist
they are all fake optical illusion created by photoshop and magnifying glass

[Anonymous No.11055951]

>>11055942
the globalist (((forestry industry))) is trying to enslave you by making you pay extra for wooden houses instead of making your mud hut made from dung and small twigs

[Anonymous No.11055955]

>>11055941
It's the truth. SpaceX covers a huge amount of the launch market and was valued at $33.3B this year. Ford is valued at $140B, and it doesn't cover most of the car market unlike how SpaceX covers most of the launch market. This shows just how much money and interest is in spaceflight (at least commercially) compared to a larger industry.

[Anonymous No.11056066]

>>11055951
>>11055939
>>11055942
>mind = blown
The snow isn't even consistent from one pic to another, also those cloud look like they were painted

[Anonymous No.11056538]

>>11055951
>>11055951
I swear this flowers look plastic

[Anonymous No.11056645]

>>11055939
>>11055942
>>11055951
The alps look comfy as fuck.
I've been to plenty of mountains and ranges, but the alps are just so aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.11057551]

>>11050178
>aknowledge the fact
fact is fact

[Anonymous No.11057583]

one object is actually closer to the mountain and the other is closer (hiding in the horizon), it's just optics

[Anonymous No.11058070]

>>11050178
Oh, it's this thread again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0

[Anonymous No.11058431]

>>11051330
>>11054801
A German aerospace firm is sending a lander back to the Apollo 17 site next year
https://youtu.be/zLyW0bUDyhY