[ 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: 6 KB, 251x251, hellyea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548196 No.2548196 [Reply] [Original]

Moon landing was a hoax. Here's proof:

No radiation spots that damage the film. Nice perfect pictures like on earth. How come the moon has perfect photos? Digital cameras did not exist at that time. No atmosphere, you think there would be some damage.

Moon landing never happened. /thread

>> No.2548205

Truth.

>> No.2548210

If anyone responds to this thread without saging, I will personally backtrace them and kick their ass.

>> No.2548215

op here. i liek cocks.

>> No.2548224

100% proof right here. Where are all you fags who were bashing us conspiracy nuts now?

>> No.2548243

OP here. How come no one can disprove this? It's because it's true. No atmosphere to protect from radiation, why is there no radiation damage from the pictures or on any of the film? Busted.

>> No.2548249

i'm with u op! u r the greatest!

>> No.2548252

>radiation
0/10

>> No.2548258

>>2548252
Are you saying there was no radiation on the moon? Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.2548260

Anyone who disagrees with you OP without providing evidence to show you are an idiot, are actually idiots themselves.

Though I lean towards the moon landing being real side, I would like to hear what people have to say about the effects of radiation on photography/videography, if they know...

Anyone who blindly believes what they are told are in the same group as fundamentalists christfags and headrag sandniggers.

>> No.2548261

>>2548243

idk maybe its possibly because the camera had radiation shielding and they weren't taking a picture facing directly into the sun you dumbfuck cd

>> No.2548262

filmed and sent directly to earth, init

>> No.2548263

You don't have to self bump that often, OP. This is a slow board.

>> No.2548265

>implying there would be damage

>> No.2548268

>>2548261
Are you saying we have to directly face the sun in order to receive radiation? Because that would make you an idiot.

>> No.2548269

colour photos were around until the year 2000 man

we didnt even have magnets in 1960

how come the space shuttle that landed on the moon was made of baking foil?

how come neil armstrong and buzz aldrin didnt have gay sex on the moon?

proof

check and mate

>> No.2548281

>>2548268
its true you only get radiation by facing the sun

which is why niggers are black

cheque and cash

>> No.2548282

>>2548268
no, but if you were in a container with only a single entrance, that entrance would have to face the sun in or for the possibility of radiation damage to exist

>> No.2548288

>provide proof of moon landing
>get called an idiot by people who don't give evidence to back their claim

You stay classy /sci/

>> No.2548304

>>2548260

i want to belive!

both sides make some compelling arguments.

the main one being the mirror they left on the moon that they shine a laser at to prove it

and the whole how come you can derp a hurp

>> No.2548311

>>2548282
what you mean like a camera?

gtfo

they didnt even have camera in 1960

>> No.2548316

>>2548304
>both sides make some compelling arguments.

Please provide compelling arguments for the moon landing being fake. List them and I will destroy them one by one.

Spoiler alert: There are no compelling arguments for the moon landing being fake.

>> No.2548317

>>2548304

Exactly. The fact that they have brought back rocks from the moon, the mirror thing, and that the cameras probably DID have radiation SHIELDING, all do seem to point to us having actually went to the moon.

All evidence points to legit, especially considering the magnitude of the hoax.

I would like to believe we did go, but as an analytical person you have to leave room for doubt, because in science you always state what you can prove, and you can never prove anything 100%. That's why I don't understand why science-fags even try to argue with christfags, it's an impossible argument.

>> No.2548328

>>2548311
then how to pictures of?

>> No.2548343

I believe that the fact that Buzz Aldrin is willing to literally jump into the air in order to punch people who deny the moon landing is evidence enough that he went to the goddamn moon and people who deny it are literally claiming that his entire life is a lie.

>> No.2548352

>>2548343
Nope. You'd be angry too if your secret had been exposed. Buzz getting angry proves nothing.

>> No.2548367

For all questions regarding moon landing hoax, please refer to the Mythbusters episode where they recreated the supposed photo discrepancies using an accurate model of the moon thus proving the photos could in fact be possible.

They also tested the foot prints photos, they aren't quite possible on earth, they need to be made in a vacuum or low atmospheric pressure.

>> No.2548381

>>2548367

I believe we went to the moon, but I'd like to point out creating a vacuum or low pressure room with sand on the floor would be infinitely easier than going to the moon.

>> No.2548382

>>2548317
>>2548316
there both go arguing all logically like scientists

>>2548352
youre a monumental idiot

but hey i cant go to the moon myself to prove this i only have the moon rocks and mirror and photos to go by.

all easily faked

i mean all you have to do to fake a mirror on the moon is just put a mirror on the moon man not hard at all.


what you guys a really missing the point is that the real neil and buzz died in earth contact and the return trip.

doubles and the people in thier lives were told to say that thisman here was buzz aldrin and neil armstrong etc

but the buzz aldrin you know and the one who actualy went to the moon and died are tow different people.

see i can chat bullshit theorys too

>> No.2548390

>>2548367
>accurate
>mythbusters

niggahyoutrollin.jpg

>> No.2548401

>this thread
7/10
ill be back the next 50 replies of butthurt to give you 1 more point

>> No.2548410

>Implying the moon landing conspiracy isn't just a >conspiracy started by the New World Order to >prevent the sheeple from seeing the truth

>> No.2548413

>>2548382

so what your saying is buzz and Niel died in splashdown and they got life doubles to live in their place and got all the family and freinds to say the life doubles were the real ones.

MIND=BLOWN

>> No.2548419

>>2548382
>gets proven wrong
>youre (sic) a monumental idiot

Yep, name calling sure proves your point. Stay classy, /sci/

>> No.2548424

>>2548401
give it now!

>> No.2548425

he's trolling you fucking retards.
LET THE TROLLING COMMENCE

>> No.2548432

>>2548419
>>2548419
wait how did you prove anything or anyone wrong?

explain this bullshit

>> No.2548440

>>2548425
whos trolling nigga?

>> No.2548444

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

Read it and weep, retards. Mankind is a spacefaring species.

>> No.2548449

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.
The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[72] Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

>> No.2548453

>>2548444
weve been a space faring spcies for a long time

but amoon landing spcies?

yes were that too but what people are saying is that maybe not.

but these people are dumb tho

>> No.2548468

>>2548432
You said buzz punching a guy in the face for exposing his lie is proof that buzz actually went to the moon. In reality, it's just proof that buzz got angry and punched a guy. That's it. You're wrong. Try again, champ.

>> No.2548477

>>2548444
>quotes wiki as proof of something.

Try again, retard.

>> No.2548485

>>2548468
i didnt say that that was the other guy

you said said

''Nope. You'd be angry too if your secret had been exposed. Buzz getting angry proves nothing''

claiming that buzz did not in fact go to the moon.

which he did

>> No.2548489

>>2548449
not to mention, people in this thread must not know that much about developing film

>itt delusional conspiracy theorists

>> No.2548493

your lame pretense is so 80s.

please step up to the plate with some modern day trolling.

really.

>> No.2548495

>>2548477
wiki is fucking wiki man

its as credible as any book thats for sure.

>> No.2548499

>>2548477
not understanding how to use Wikipedia

>try again retard, i'll even guide you there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#References

>> No.2548506

>>2548485
>which he did
>[citation needed]

>> No.2548507

>>2548489
id did photo science and photography at university nigga!!!

but then I'm agreeing with you.

>> No.2548516

>>2548506
did you not take your retard medicine today?

get some help

>> No.2548522

>>2548495
>>2548499
>they think a user created page which anyone on the internet can edit is a reliable scientific source

ohwow.jpg I'm trolled, you got me.

>> No.2548527

>>2548516
Again with the name calling. Look bro, you can't just say something happened and then call them names when they call you out on it. That's not how science works.

>> No.2548544

>>2548522
>well now that we are on the topic of reliable scientific sources
let us see some.

>> No.2548547

>>2548527
we already established the path of proof of the moon landing.

if you still belive it was a hoax calling you a retard is pretty much the only thing left to do.

provide some evidence REAL evidence that the moon landing didnt happen.

if not then fuck off.

>> No.2548573

>>2548544
They're called journals. You know, the peer reviewed kind? Not whatever I happen to edit onto a Wikipedia page.

>> No.2548577

>>2548522


and books are and can be written and published by anyone.

wiki is elastic which means room for new data of all kind can be added making is evololutionary.

where as you write a book one year then it gets disporved but oh wait its a book so its still credible?nope. but people who have not read the defunct book explain why its wrong only have the book the cling to.

so please offer me some as this anon said

>>2548544

lets do an experiment ok

use this wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#References

delete the whole page and put that I am a massive faggot as the only data

DO IT IF YOU CAN FUCKTARD

>> No.2548578

>>2548573
show me some that disprove lunar landings
do it.

>> No.2548585

>>2548547
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) No air means no moisture, which means it would be impossible to make as detailed a footprint as was made.
7) No radiation damage for photographs

>> No.2548591

>>2548573

journals are as editable as wiki.

i read it i smell bullshit then i write a journal telling people about your bullshit.

etc


the fact that its paper and ink doesnt make the data any more or less value

>> No.2548593
File: 7 KB, 251x251, 1290195893483.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548593

>> No.2548600

>>2548578
>>2548585
FUCK THIS THREAD I'M OUT

>> No.2548603

>>2548585
every single one of your points has been defunct

let it go

>> No.2548613

Rocket goes up, rocks come down

You can't explain that.

>> No.2548619

people who argue directly to moon landing trolls (and they do exist IRL) do them a favor: these idiots have prepared talking points for everything surrounding the landing.

Instead, ask: do you believe in satellites?

If no: google maps, satellite phones, observable in the sky, gps, etc etc

If yes: If you believe in satellites, then you also believe that liquid gas rockets can reach geosynchronous orbit with heavy payloads. So what, exactly, are you arguing about?

>> No.2548622
File: 39 KB, 430x340, boogie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548622

>>2548593
come on lets boogie

>> No.2548629
File: 13 KB, 264x233, 1297726774143.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548629

>>2548196

>> No.2548633
File: 1.49 MB, 259x264, cupcakedog.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548633

THIS JUST IN: THE MOON IS MADE OUT OF RETROFLECTORS.

>> No.2548639

>>2548591
You have no idea what peer review means. I know you don't because you actually believe a journal like yours could get published. You are so stupid on so many levels it blows my mind, and you need to stop typing right now.

>> No.2548645

>>2548603
>every single one of your points has been defunct (sic)

a) You're 12, get off the internet.
b) Saying "it's been disproven" isn't actually disproving it, retard.

>> No.2548654

set aside every single shred of evidence from either side of the argument, and consider this. People saying the landing was a hoax are supposing that the US government, that was unable to keep things like watergate, the pentagon papers, and even god damn wiki leaks from going public SOMEHOW TRICKED THE SMARTEST PEOPLE FROM EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET INTO BELIEVING AN ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT EVENT HAPPENED. The U.S. is just not that competent.

the same goes for"

9/11 conspiracy
Area 51
[fill in the blank]

>> No.2548659

>>2548613

niggers stole them.

>> No.2548660

>>2548639
show me a journal you wrtten that been published then dickwad?

i never said i had written a journal OR even published one.

so please fuck off ok

if you cant offer anything more than vague speculations then please seriosuly fuck the fuck off.

>> No.2548671

>>2548645
this is laughable

yooure calling me a retard and yet YOU are theone who belive in the conspiracy.

and the fact you belive being disporved isnt being dispoved makes me laugh.

brb looking at my retro reflectors on the moon they are laughing at you too.

>> No.2548676

jesus fucking christ
can we have a sticky with the basic scientific process?
and another sticky detailing peer review?

PLEASE MODS

>> No.2548707

>>2548654

>>9/11 conspiracy...

actually, this is very soon about to come to light - an old man is dying and he thinks it's his path to forgiveness to spill his guts.

gotta love god!

oh, and area 51 does exist, we just don't really know what's in it.

>> No.2548714

>>2548619
Dude, nobody's arguing that you can't put a rocket in orbit. They spacemen HAD to get into orbit in order for the hoax to work. The problem is actually getting to the moon and surviving that radiation belt, which they didn't do.

>> No.2548720

>>2548676
oh but that would mean moot cares

which he doesnt.

anyway if your too dumb to go off and learn how to peer review and scientific method then a sticky isnt going to change that

>> No.2548732
File: 2 KB, 126x119, 1297898269845s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548732

>>2548714
AGAIN WHY IS THE MOON A RETROFLECTOR?

>> No.2548733
File: 404 KB, 320x240, 1296788552779.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548733

All electronics sent into space are shielded.

>> No.2548736

>>2548660
Your arguments are so all over the place. Are you really a good representation of the "logical side" of reasoning? I didn't say you wrote one. In fact, if you go back and re read what I said (judging by your response I guage that you either didn't read it or have a severe reading comprehension problem, or likely both) you'd see that I told you that you couldn't have written a journal, because you have no idea what peer review is. If you think anyone can just publish a journal and get it published, you're stupid. If you think peer reviewed journals aren't the best source we have for discussing science, you're an idiot. Your points are moot. Go away.

>> No.2548742

>>2548707
nobody ever said area 51 didnt exist.

what he is saying is that a government that is unable to control the flowof data as it is now even back then does not have the ability to be able to do this.

i am interested in 9/11 actually its the only conspiracy that has merit to it.

i even called that fucker the day it happend I was like G W BUSH DID IT IM TELLING YOU GUYS!!!

people though i was crazy but now i have a tin foil hat and everyone thinks im insane so looks who laughing now!

>> No.2548745

>>2548733

has there ever been non-shielded things sent into space since those early animal experiments?

>> No.2548746

>>2548714
ah. so they had the rockets, the men, they launched to a point where it's trivially easy to get to the moon--but did not?

This is because radiation would have killed them? Do you also deny the existence of the ISS?

>> No.2548754

>>2548746
Yes, radiation would have killed them. Satellites are unmanned, rockets filled with men are not. Why are you even comparing the two?

>> No.2548757

>>2548733

as well as are all people and animals... (except the first soviet dogs and monkeys - they didn't do so well...).

>> No.2548759

>>2548736

so you think the reflector on the moon is a moot point?

and youre still calling ME stupid.

ok fuck off now ok please.

>> No.2548776

>>2548742

>>nobody ever said area 51 didnt exist.

yeah, YOU said that. please keep up with your dumb responses.

>> No.2548785
File: 821 KB, 640x360, xlarge_ibm-watson-jeopardy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548785

0110101101101001011011000110110000100000011001010111011001100101011100100111100101101111011011100110
0101001000000110100101101110001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011101000110100001110010
01100101011000010110010000101110

>> No.2548786

>>2548776
no you fucking idiot i NEVER said area 51 didn't exist

ever.

you fucking idiot

>> No.2548789

>>2548759
I love how you people think the reflector on the moon proves that man went there. As if to say that you need a man to physically go down to the moon and put it on there. As if to say we've never sent unmanned probes to the moon before. As if to say we haven't put shit on the moon unmanned before. You're really just talking out of your ass.

>> No.2548796

>>2548785
01101001 00100000 01100001 01100111 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100111 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101111 00100000 01101101 01110101 01100011 01101000 00101110

>> No.2548798

>>2548754
I see. it was technologically possible to launch men to orbit, but (for whatever reason) they did not. I presume that all later manned space mission were also hoaxes?

>> No.2548807

>>2548742

>>what he is saying is that a government that is unable to control the flowof data as it is now even back then does not have the ability to be able to do this.

what, exactly, does "the control of the flow of data" have to do with putting men and spacecraft on the moon? It's not an exercise in "data", it's an exercise in physics. We had the know-how (albeit barely), and we did it. Several times.

you still think the planet's flat, dontcha?

"here there be monsters"...

heh

>> No.2548808

>>2548798
They launched them to low orbit. At low orbit, you don't have to pass the radiation belt.

>> No.2548820

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

so you think that these are perfect images???
they're not as good as the one in Houston, don't tell me that the film wasn't a little damaged...

>> No.2548832
File: 37 KB, 640x410, Explorer1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548832

>>2548733
Not necessarily. The electronics themselves can be radiation hardened.
>>2548745
Many early space probes didn't have very complex electronics and didn't need shielding. Big transistors and old microchips are surprisingly rad-proof.

Pic related.

>> No.2548836

>>2548789

they had to align it pysically.

this was way befor mars rover tech.

but this is a compelling point you raise.,

I would like some more evidence of unmanned reflectors being placed on the moon

>> No.2548853

>>2548807
control the flow of data to creat the conspiracy

see im taking friendly fire now

I WAS FUCKING AGREEING WITH YOU!

>> No.2548863

>>2548808
I see. It's all about the radiation belt.

Measurements show that a satellite recieves about 2500 rem per year in high orbit. travelling at 25000 mph, it takes a shuttle about 15 minutes to traverse the inner van allen belt

that works out to about 7e-6 rem, or one-thousandth what we receive on earth.

Which one of my assumptions is wrong by a factor of ten thousand??

>> No.2548870
File: 76 KB, 497x453, trollin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2548870

OP here. Thanks for the laughs, idiots. I'll be back tomorrow to troll you all again. Have a nice night.

>> No.2548871

>>2548196
SHIELDING
HOW DOES IT WORK!?

Nuclear Reactor operator here.
Your understanding of radiation is appalling.
You couldn't even tell me what a tenth thickness is.

>> No.2548885

>>2548754
Radiation wouldn't kill you in the Van Allen belts, you dumbass, you'd get a couple Rem.

The man who DISCOVERED them would call you a dipshit for believing this.

>> No.2548890

>>2548870
YOU WERE TROLLING???!?!?!?!

Dude, we all know it. We're just practicing the argument.

>> No.2548906

>>2548871

mil

>> No.2548924

>>2548890
lol trolled so hard