[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 756 KB, 2340x2349, 126308980348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861049 No.1861049 [Reply] [Original]

Okay so you want proof that we never went to the moon?

Well here it is: See that device that "astronaut" is holding? That designed to replicate the footprint of a space suit's boot. They stamped those all over the moon so it looked like we went there.

We need to storm the White House, people. Finally we have the proof to get some answers!

>> No.1861051
File: 152 KB, 776x1322, click.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861051

>> No.1861056

>>1861051
4chan addon doesn't work with firefox 4.0

all of my hate

>> No.1861078

It's... it's a glorified shovel. Remember how they brought back a few tonnes of rocks on every mission? In fact, if you actually looked at the picture, you'd SEE the rocks inside it.

>> No.1861082

We stuck our flag up there.

What more proof do you need, faggot?

>> No.1861086

1) NASA didn't have the technology to send a man all the way to the moon AND bring him back alive
2) The solar flares would've fried the spacemen instantly
3) There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.
4) No stars in any pictures
5) Flag waves, there's no wind on the moon
6) You can't make footprints in a vacuum.

>> No.1861089

>>1861082
>>1861078
Obviously the joke is that he would have to be on the moon to actually use that tool in the first place, you fucking retards.

>> No.1861092

>>1861082
Prove it's there. Not a picture of the sound stage they filmed it on, I want a satellite photo of the flag.

>> No.1861100
File: 11 KB, 250x181, data_laugh.old[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861100

>>1861078
>>1861082

>>1861089

>> No.1861102

>>1861086

Wrong wrong wrong, you're all wrong. I'm not even going to bother to tell you why, it's been said 9000 times already. Probably a troll anyway, piss off

>> No.1861104

>>1861092
>>1861092

Get a telescope nigger, and you can see it yourself.

>> No.1861107

>>1861086
>There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock

Copyright Universal Studios amirite!

>> No.1861108

>>1861102
>looks at evidence
>"nope wrong, wrong, i don't have to explain why because it's obviously wrong lol so wrong."
>cool argument bro

>> No.1861115

I'm pretty sure we went to the moon, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea of the recordings being staged.
I mean how did they broadcast video footage all the way from the moon live?

>> No.1861117

We sent TWELVE people to the goddamn moon. TWELVE. If the first one was fake, the ones following couldn't ALL be fake.

>> No.1861121

>>1861117
They were all fake. OP proves it in his picture.

>> No.1861145

>>1861104
No you can't. Even the biggest telescopes doesn't have the resolution.

>> No.1861149

>>1861104
No, you can't see it with a telescope. Try again bro. It's okay if you can't show me, I know already that it's not there.

>> No.1861150

>>1861115
>I mean how did they broadcast video footage all the way from the moon live?
say it's pretty much live, nobody gives a fuck. The end

>> No.1861154

>>1861089
Yes, I got it. It's just... it would have been nicer if the picture chosen didn't clearly show rocks in the shovel.

On second thought, maybe it's derpier this way.

>> No.1861155

Yeah, I always thought it was bullshit to.

Why waste money on space travel and actual scientific advancement, when we can blow BILLIONS on worthless sandniggers?

>> No.1861157

My father is a huge, facepalm-inducing Ham Radio nerd. He knows people who pointed Ham Radios at the moon and listened to the Astronaut's transmissions.

There's no other possible source of transmissions that appear to come from the moon that can make observers on that many points believe that the transmission comes from the moon.

Anyhow, we at least got radio equipment onto the moon. And by the time we can reliably put radio equipment on the moon, we have the technology to put a man on the moon, so why bother faking a moon landing?

>> No.1861162

>>1861155
Because the pearl harbor + vietnam = disaster

Someone did something awful in the country and the people were pissed off so we wanted to do something about it then we realize it wasn't worth it because it's impossible to win a guerrilla war. We should just fight conventionals.

At least we got Saddam hanged.

>> No.1861165

>>1861157

Oh cool, similar story; my dad was putting himself through engineering school at the time, and as his university had a radio telescope, he and some other guys gathered day to day and used it to track the capsule to the moon and back.

Of course every radio telescope in Russia was doing the same thing. If we'd faked it, they would have been the first to call us out.

>> No.1861166

With an array of ground-based scopes set far enough apart, you can theoretically just resolve the Apollo 11 lander, with some signal processing and assuming that the seeing is good. Don't know if anyone's actually done it, though.

Kaguya had some nice pictures of the lander a while back.

>> No.1861171 [DELETED] 

>>1861157
>why bother faking a moon landing?

Because it's expensive as hell.

>> No.1861174 [DELETED] 

>>1861165
>Of course every radio telescope in Russia was doing the same thing. If we'd faked it, they would have been the first to call us out.

All they saw was a tin can flying to the Moon.

>> No.1861175
File: 87 KB, 1000x1000, 397621main_ap17_1st50km_4release.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861175

>>1861149
You can see it with a telescope orbiting the moon however.

>> No.1861180

>>1861174
And that tin can feeding back video images from the moon.

>> No.1861181

>>1861145
bullshit
If I can see my house from google earth there should be a telescope that can see the freaking moon landing

>> No.1861185

>>1861181


Yeah I'd assume it's possible, even at a consumer level...

>> No.1861191 [DELETED] 

>>1861180
You know Sputnik, do you? This little piece of scrap metal that send those magic signals from space.

>> No.1861193

Am I the only one who thinks that with the fucking special effects etc. available in the 60s it would have been more complicated and expesnive to fake it?

>> No.1861194

>>1861185
You'd assume wrong, faggot. Do the math. To see a lunar lander from earth would take a telescope several miles wide.

>> No.1861195

>>1861193

No, some of us aren't, in fact, idiots.

>> No.1861196

>>1861191
It sent beeps, retard. It didn't send live video from the moon.

>> No.1861198 [DELETED] 

>>1861185
NASA should have enough money to show us some good pics seen from Earth. Still don't get why noone so far produced any real footage from Earth.

Maybe they are to afraid somone could prove an obvious fake... why did all the original footage get lost again?

>> No.1861200

>>1861049
Well, I lol'd

>> No.1861204 [DELETED] 

>>1861196
But you do realize you can send videos to a thin can approaching the Moon and send them back, do you?

Am I talking to a retard? Are you intentionally dense?

>> No.1861206

>>1861198

I would "think" you'd need something in orbit to avoid atmospheric bullshit, but...

>> No.1861211

>>1861195
yet this thread suggests otherwise

>> No.1861213

>>1861204
No you can't you fucking retard -- not without those signals being detected from earth. And it would be literally impossible the technology of the time to produce those videos anywhere but the moon. It would be difficult with today's technology.

>> No.1861214

so they went to the moon, placed footsteps so it looks like they went to the moon even if they didnt?

>> No.1861222

>>1861214
yeah bro it's perfectly logical.
Also the earth is flat

>> No.1861223

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282008_season%29#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landin
g.22

>> No.1861224

>>1861214


Well...

They could've built a robot, sent THEM to the moon, had them walk around a bit, place the flag/mirrors, then leave...

:3

>> No.1861232 [DELETED] 
File: 40 KB, 697x550, little johnny stupid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861232

>>1861213

>> No.1861241

I'm not a moon landing doubter, but what was the official explanation for the lack of stars in any pictures?

>> No.1861244

>>1861223
Yeah, you can also reflect a laser off a reflector that the moon landing left. At that point there were live radio transmissions from the moon, as well as a large item that has been left behind.

If you can do that much with pre-semiconductor technology without sending humans over, you'd have used it for things that we haven't seen.

>> No.1861249

>>1861198
To see a 10 meter object on the moon from earth orbit, would require an angular resolution of asin(10 meters/384403 km) = 0.0054 arcseconds

To do that with visible light would require a telescope with a primary lens diameter of
D = 1.220 * 500nm /(10 meters/384403 km) = 23.4 meters. That would be to see the object as a single pixel

The Hubble Space telescope has a primary mirror only 1/10 of the required size at 2.4 meters.

However, if you want to see pictures of the landers and other objects left behind, there are many pictures of them taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

>> No.1861248 [DELETED] 

>>1861241
The sudden disappearence of all the original footage and the blueprints is much more interesting.

It's supposed to be the ABSOLUTELY FIRST HUMAN on another planet and they lose the originals!!!!!!!!

Or the simple fact that they need one to two decades to repeat the landing although they should already have the technology since 40 years ago!!

>> No.1861252

>>1861232
That's not how radio signals work, retard. They refract and internally reflect off the atmosphere. You can't hide them.

>> No.1861255

>>1861248
We have tons of original footage. WTF are you talking about. Stop going to conspiracy theory websites. You obviously have a broken bullshit detector.

>> No.1861256 [DELETED] 

>>1861249
>pictures of them taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

lol

>> No.1861258

>>1861256
Why is that funny? See
>>1861175

>> No.1861259

Conspiracy theories are fucking retarded; theorists can claim anything is evidence in favor of their little story, but all evidence contrary is automatically a government trick.

>> No.1861257 [DELETED] 

>>1861252
>You can't hide them.

Detectors from 1969!

>> No.1861271

>>1861241
>>1861241
Still waiting for an answer bros. Is it something to do with exposure times or what?

>> No.1861276 [DELETED] 

>>1861259
>Conspiracy

Calling it a conspiracy theory and you have to show no evidence anymore.

Calling it a conspiracy theory is always the cheapest way out of a discussion. It's already got the same status as 'Nazi' or any other aggressive adhominem spam.

>> No.1861282 [DELETED] 

>>1861271
They always said it was due to the bad quality of the cameras.

Well, lets repeat for all eternity and stop asking stupid questions. Let's just not think about any critical topics.

>> No.1861290

>>1861241

the same as the lack of stars in recent pictures

>> No.1861300

>>1861290
>>1861290
>fails to answer my question adequately

>> No.1861301

this thread has given me incentive to never trust /sci/'s opinion on anything science related

>> No.1861305

>>1861300
It's too bright for stars to show up in the same exposure that captures the sunlit moon.

>> No.1861309 [DELETED] 

>>1861290
What recent pictures from the suface of the Moon?

>> No.1861312

>>1861300
Those gold visors they wear are there to protect their eyes from the unobstructed sun.
Look at the moon at night(full moon), see how bright that bitch is? Imagine BEING there.

The cameras, equally, have their exposures set really fucking low. Easy for mr. Blinding dust surface, impossible for mrs. piss poor stars to get a look in.

>> No.1861311 [DELETED] 

>>1861301
why?

>> No.1861320 [DELETED] 

>>1861312
The Moon has no atmosphere, nothing to reflect light.

Why didn't they just take aynthing they like to shield the camera against the ground and take a picture of the stars?

>> No.1861321

>>1861312
Everyone knows that subsequent to the "landing", the government started pointing giant batteries of lasers at the moon to make it shine more brightly so that this explanation would seem plauside to the general public. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE ME WRONG!

>> No.1861323

/sci/: trolls trolling trolls, with troll science

>> No.1861326

>>1861320
You can see the stars from earth. Why the fuck would they use their film to take pictures of the stars on the moon -- lol.

>> No.1861327 [DELETED] 

>>1861321
WOWWOWOWOWO!

Shithead is already that angry because America isn't 'FUCK YEAH!' anymore.

>> No.1861328

>>1861327
LOL is this what moon landing conspiracy theorists are? Butthurt europeans? LOL, the world makes sense now.

>> No.1861329 [DELETED] 

>>1861326
1. Why the fuck wouldn't they? The constellation is slightly different from watching it from Earth.

2. People already started to ask questions after the first landing. Taking a simple picture of the stars would have proven any critics and for all eternity wrong.

>> No.1861337

>>1861320
Its funny that you get that theres nothing to reflect the light, and you can't see this point.
The other reason you can see stars so clearly on earth, is the atmosphere scatters the light a bit, making them bigger.

In space, with nothing between you and the star, the star appears as the exact size little ball that it really is, damn small.

Also, they are on the moon to take photos of the friggin moon dude.

>> No.1861338

>>1861305
>>1861312
thanks brothas, satisfied.

>> No.1861339

>>1861329
> Why the fuck wouldn't they? The constellation is slightly different from watching it from Earth.
LOL -- the constellations are not different from earth. The earth moves much more than that in its orbit around the sun.

>People already started to ask questions after the first landing. Taking a simple picture of the stars would have proven any critics and for all eternity wrong.
LMAO

>> No.1861342

If only they left behind something shiny and reflective. Something we could aim a laser at and determine the distance from earth. Like some kind of NASA experiment. LIKE A MIRROR. LIKE THAT TIME THEY DID.

>> No.1861347

>>1861329
>1. Why the fuck wouldn't they? The constellation is slightly different from watching it from Earth.
"Slightly" being the operative word. As in, not visibly different at all.
>2. People already started to ask questions after the first landing. Taking a simple picture of the stars would have proven any critics and for all eternity wrong.
The thought probably didn't occur to them. Not believing their giant project that they spent ages on ever happened at all was a bloody alien concept.

>> No.1861348

>>1861329
You have no idea of the dimensions of space if you think a photograph would be able to demonstrate the distance.

The reason you do not have organisations with the reputation of NASA address crazies, is because it makes their claims seem valid.

As Dawkins(i think) said, having a debate with a flat earther looks great on their CV, not so good on mine.

>> No.1861350 [DELETED] 

>>1861339
What? The same picture taken on Earth and the Moon, at the same time? Same constellation? Same angle?

>> No.1861359

>>1861329
>Alright we've spent 10 years, a fucktillion dollars, and we finally going to get some fellows down on the surface of the moon!
>Fuck yeah!
>We want the whole world to know of our awesomeness... how can we make sure everyone knows about it?
>Well, lets give them cameras, and make them take a fuckton of high res still photos.
>what else?
>Let's stream the whole thing live to TV with video cameras.
>Oh, fuck yeah!
>wait, what if some numbnuts tries to say that the 100's of thousands fo still photos and the hours of video are all fake, and it was all just a stunt to fool the russians?
>I know, have them take a picture of the stars!
lulz

>> No.1861361

>>1861350
Which constellation is a different shape in spring and autumn, fuctard?

>> No.1861369

>>1861350
Yes son.

I know in your mind, the stars would be like, heaps to the left or something.
In reality, its like an ant with his tenth of a centimeter apart eyes trying to judge how high a mountain is.

Even better comparison, look at something on the horizon, take a step to the right, compare the two images. Can you even prove you moved? From such a small distance? Do you know how friggin far the closest star is?

>> No.1861440 [DELETED] 

>>1861369
Then take a planet? Let them take photos of Venus or Mars. Photos from Earth and Photos from the Moon.

What's the problem? Why so angry?

>> No.1861443

>>1861369
1 AU

>> No.1861450

>>1861443
>>1861443
my astronomy 101 teacher used to make really bad jokes about how whenever he was using astronomical units he just thought of a guy from brooklyn trying to get his attention.

"eyy youss"


true fucking story. I hated that professor.

>> No.1861464

> 1) NASA didn't have the technology to send a man all the way to the moon AND bring him back alive
Prove it.
> 2) The solar flares would've fried the spacemen instantly
Prove it.
> 3) There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.
Pics or it didn't happen.
> 5) Flag waves, there's no wind on the moon
Prove it.
6) You can't make footprints in a vacuum.
Bullshit.

>> No.1861466

>>1861369

Am I right in thinking that what you're getting at is that there's a perceived zero parallax because of the great distance?

>> No.1861476

>>1861086

The flag waves because of the little/no wind resistance on the moon (as it's in a vacuum).
This means that the flag, after being placed, still flutters as their is very little resistance to stop it.

>> No.1861481
File: 183 KB, 400x323, arguecat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861481

>>1861464

>> No.1861489

>>1861466
Pretty much, rather the great distance between us and the stars, and the very small distance between the moon and us.

With an ordinary photograph, its doubtfull you could even demonstrate a change between the moon and earth sky.

>> No.1861495

>>1861489

Ah right, I see what you mean, very true.

>> No.1861503

There is a mirror on the moon that you can shine a laser at and have it reflected at you. They put it there to measure the rate at which the moon is moving away from us.

>> No.1861507

>>1861464

> 1) NASA didn't have the technology to send a man all the way to the moon AND bring him back alive
You mean a submarine, but in space, with big ass rockets attached?
> 2) The solar flares would've fried the spacemen instantly
Nope.
> 3) There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.
Yeah, there is. Or more precisely there is a c shaped hair on the developed photos. There is no such C on the original. Also, no film anything marks props with letters.
> 5) Flag waves, there's no wind on the moon
They shook the pole putting it in, theres no wind to stop it waving straight away. Watch the full vid, it stops pretty soon after.
6) You can't make footprints in a vacuum.
Why? Dust can't be moved and compacted because there is no air?

>> No.1861509

>>1861503

He's right.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

(With pictures, too. Sweet).

>> No.1861520

>>1861489
what the hell, the stars close to earth would shift by 8.69*10^-14 degrees on the moon, I can see that deference with my naked eye

>> No.1861524

Several times have I pinged the mirror on the moon with an IR laser.

We have been there, anybody that says otherwise is a complete and utter retard.

>> No.1861529

Oh, and the flag waves due to lesser gravity and a lack of atmosphere, allowing the flag to be pushed around by photonic pressure.

>> No.1861530

>>1861524
>Anyone who says otherwise is a republican

>> No.1861552

>>1861520
Well, in that case you can see the lander itself in great detail with your naked eye! Is it still there, anon?

>> No.1861568

>>1861530
fuck your mother

>> No.1861590
File: 18 KB, 123x140, wiz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861590

>That designed to replicate the footprint of a space suit's boot. They stamped those all over the moon so it looked like we went there.
>They stamped those all over the moon
>so it looked like we went there.

WAT.

>> No.1861592

>>1861590
Stick to children's movies bro.

>> No.1861640

looks like a dirt sifter to me.

>> No.1861641

> That designed to replicate the footprint of a space suit's boot. They stamped those all over the moon so it looked like we went there.
> They stamped [...] so it looked like [...]
> They
Didn't think out this conspiracy theory particularly well, did you?

>> No.1861649

>>1861641
>>1861640
>>1861590
>they don't get the joke

>> No.1861656
File: 50 KB, 700x500, trolls everywhere.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861656

>>1861049
>They stamped those all over the moon so it looked like we went there
*facepalm*

>> No.1861667

My one questions is this: Why aren't the majority of you fucktards SAGEing this thread? Why argue with the very unskilled troll? Are you all really that stupid?

>> No.1861694

>>1861667
>>1861667
Clearly a government agent trying to distract us from the truth.

>> No.1861850

>>1861086
>>1861086

Try harder:

>1) NASA didn't have the technology to send a man all the way to the moon AND bring him back alive

Russians congratulated first. They had all their spy equipment triangulating the craft. Slight something wrong and they'd been shooting nuclear armed rockets. Or are the commis in on the plot against them?

>2) The solar flares would've fried the spacemen instantly

They went for it and hoped their would be none.

>3) There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.

I bet if I search long enough I'll find a rock in the next field that has some symbol/letter on it naturally.

>4) No stars in any pictures

Old school analog film was choosen to get the bright surface right. Stars are too dim compared and therefore didn't develop. Do you see stars in the blue sky?

>5) Flag waves, there's no wind on the moon

That is the problem. Without the usual air friction a flag set in motion on a jittering pole that was rammed in the ground moves much longer than your Earth senses expect. Your brain instantly constructs that it is waving since you never so a vaccum flag jittering from mechanical motion of the pole.

>6) You can't make footprints in a vacuum.

That is simply idiotic.

>> No.1861874

ITT: Baby's first troll

>> No.1861878

>>1861874
my first troll was posting a horsecock. had a guy demanding more within seconds.

>> No.1861882

10/10.

>> No.1861888
File: 218 KB, 842x451, 1263843888824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861888

The fact that people are trolling here doesn't make me mad.

What makes me mad is there are people the ACTUALLY believe this shit.

>There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.

Implying they mark stage props.

>> No.1861891

>>1861878
Did you deliver?

>> No.1861892
File: 25 KB, 450x300, 1239210506028.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1861892

>looking at the replies from people who didn't read op's statement in full
DAMMIT SCI THIS IS WHY I WON'T ASK YOU GUYS SERIUS QUIESTIONS

>> No.1861915

>>1861850
>3) There's a C on one of the pictures of a rock. You'd have to be lying to convince yourself that it's anything other than a stage prop.

Hair on the film. Some nerd was fapping to the moonwalks.

>>5) Flag waves, there's no wind on the moon
In a photo?

>> No.1861923

>>1861049
>They stamped those all over the moon so it looked like we went there
I burst out laughing.

Thanks, I needed that.

>> No.1862087

>>1861915

didn't you know that NASA has cameras capable of capturing gifs on paper?

>> No.1862134

>>1862087
>>1862087
DONT FUCKING MOCK ME BIG GUY YOU THINK YOURE FUCKING TOUGH MAKING FUN OF ME ON THE SCIENCE BOARD? YOURE ALL FAGGOTS SHUT UP

>> No.1862175
File: 17 KB, 381x235, fridgehorror.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862175

>>1861923

>> No.1862193

Just because they have a 'boot stamp' doesn't mean they faked it.

1) You don't need to stamp on set, you could just make a stamp in a different studio.
2) People are dumb. A footprint is symbolic (I guess thats the best way of saying it) Hell, if i was there i'd make a boot stamp if it really wasnt possible with my feet.
3) There are tyre tracks right next to it, so what stops there from being footprints?
4) how the hell do you KNOW that's a foot stamp? I looks like it is collecting rocks - im not saying im right im just confused as to why you are so sure.

And on the side, can anyone explain the absence of stars?

>> No.1862217

>>1862193
why so serious?

>> No.1862226

>>1862217

iwishihadagoodpictureonmycomputertoexplainhowconfusediambecauseyouaresayingthattomeeventhoughloadsmo
repeopleareragingevenharderthanme.jpg

>> No.1862238

>>1862193

Because of cameras. Exposure, look it up.

>> No.1862246

>>1862193

Did you read the fucking thread at all?

>> No.1862247

they have a retroreflector setup on the moon so you just have to send a laser pulse and detect it when it gets back to you.

also they did this on the bigbang theory season 4 episode 1

>> No.1862248
File: 139 KB, 424x470, 1285124824339.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862248

OP, I commend you, that was a good joke.

Everyone else who's arguing that the moon landings were faked: see picture.

>> No.1862268

The explanations are so fucking elementary, only dumb Americans actually believe they didn't land on the moon.

>> No.1862280

>People think OP is serious.
>They don't realize that he's mocking all the lunatics who think the moon landing was fake.
>Maybe the people who are seemingly responding seriously to OP's thread are kidding, too.
>Hopefully

>> No.1862290

>>1862134

calm down man i was joking

>> No.1862296

Explain this, non-believers.
It's a mirror, hand-placed by US SPACE MARINES.

>> No.1862297
File: 45 KB, 799x599, 799px-Goddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862297

>>1862296
This time with a picture. Yeah.

>> No.1862299

>>1862226
iwishpeoplewouldreadtheopspostandthenreliesitisajokebecausetomakethebootprintswiththebootprintmaking
stickpatentpendingnasawouldhavetogotothemoonandletoneoftheastronautsusethebootprintmakingstickpatent
pendingtofakethemgoingtothemoon.jpg.gif.exe.rif

>> No.1862435
File: 55 KB, 755x393, oueoet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862435

Getting banned for questioning the Landing on the Moon... and all my posts got deleted...

Good job 4chan!