/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7015735]

Did the U.S actually go to the moon?

[Anonymous No.7015738]

>>7015735
Yes

[Anonymous No.7015751]

>>7015735
Yup.

[Anonymous No.7015754]

No

[Anonymous No.7015755]

>>7015735
Maybe

[Anonymous No.7015760]

>>7015735
Yes

Buttblasted yuropoors like to be jealous tinfoil hatters and say otherwise

[Anonymous No.7015769]

>>7015735
i can't tell you the number of times i've had my posts deleted and been banned for providing logical arguments that prove that we did not.

pic related, showing studio light interacting with an atmosphere. this effect is not possible on the moon where there is no atmosphere.

why would pictures on the moon be perfectly lit and contrasted to be viewed by eyes that evolved to work in an atmosphere?

[Anonymous No.7015771]

>>7015760
Fuck off yank russia 100% won the space race.

[Anonymous No.7015772]

>>7015735
nvidia proved they did

[Anonymous No.7015773]

>>7015769
>providing logical arguments that prove that we did not
>why would pictures on the moon be perfectly lit and contrasted to be viewed by eyes that evolved to work in an atmosphere?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs

[Anonymous No.7015776]

>>7015773
>we can recreate a bunch of things in a computer game
>we can't even reliably send anything to LEO anymore
do you even pay attention?

[Anonymous No.7015799]

>>7015735
how can an astronaut walk on the moon if it's made of cheese?

[Anonymous No.7015804]

>>7015735
The moon does not exist. The earth is a flat surface covered by a dome which projects the afterlife. All space information is disinfo created by the reptillians in order to control us. Come to /x/ to learn more about it.

[Anonymous No.7015810]

>>7015769
You do realize that effect is caused by refraction of light through the billions of minute lunar regolith particles right?

Oh sorry I forgot that you moon landing deniers are worse than 9/11 deniers and pretend facts don't exist.
>guys I'm telling you
>the twin towers didn't actually exist
>it's all brainwashing and information control
>there was no 9/11... BECAUSE THE TOWERS AREN'T REAL!!!

[Anonymous No.7015815]

>>7015769
>this proves we did not.
got anything better, goy?

[Anonymous No.7015818]

>>7015804
you fool. The surface of the moon is actually a reflection of the underworld, ruled by Hades. You best beg Athena you find the truth before it's too late.

[Anonymous No.7015835]

>>7015799
>>7015804
>>7015810
>>7015815
>>7015818
look at this. you are responding to a caricature, a stereotype, not anything that was said.

why are you doing that? why did that association immediately come to mind?

someone planted those idea associations in you. someone wants you immediately associate any questioning of any of the official government stories with craziness.

start peaking behind the curtain instead of being amazed by the show.

[Anonymuos No.7015841]

>>7015735
Why was this video banned though? I'm really curious now

[Anonymous No.7015848]

>>7015769
That's glare in the camera. Quite possible on the moon.

>why would pictures on the moon be perfectly lit and contrasted to be viewed by eyes that evolved to work in an atmosphere?
Same orbital radius. The eye has tremendous dynamic range.

[Anonymous No.7015851]

>>7015769
>why would pictures on the moon be perfectly lit and contrasted to be viewed by eyes that evolved to work in an atmosphere?
because we designed the cameras so that they would give us usable pictures

[Anonymous No.7015865]

>>7015835

[Anonymous No.7015868]

>>7015769
>why would pictures on the moon be perfectly lit and contrasted to be viewed by eyes that evolved to work in an atmosphere?
>Includes image taken on the Moon that's not perfectly lit and contrasted

This is why we have such a hard time with conspiracy theorists. I don't even know what point you're trying to argue from.

[Anonymous No.7015875]

>>7015835
you fucking deniers are so predictable. You give nothing more than half-assed vague bits of pseudo evidence for your position. Then when called on it you shift into full retard and call everyone closeminded and indoctrinated for not agreeing with you.

[Anonymous No.7015879]

>>7015848
i don't think you understand how much the atmosphere on earth affects light. have you looked up during the day? ever wondered why the sky is blue?

>>7015851
they put silver paint on the film canisters, but other than that, they were essentially just top of the line analog cameras from the 1960s. they were also strapped to the astronauts' chests, with no viewfinder, and no way of adjusting any of the camera settings from aperture to focus to exposure. and yet they captured images that when shown to any professional photographer they will tell you this is amazing lighting. in fact, every part of this photo would win awards for how well it was done.

[Anonymous No.7015883]

>>7015879
Did you actually take a picture in perfect vacuum to compare it to those took in the moon or you are just talking out of your ass?

[Anonymous No.7015884]

>>7015879
they also took thousands and thousands of pictures. they probably took like fifty different takes of that shot alone

those other pictures are all available, but nobody ever talks about them because they're all blurry messes

[Anonymous No.7015888]

>>7015735
>Did the U.S actually go to the moon?
Not all of it.

I can say with some confidence that Wyoming stayed on Earth.

[Anonymous No.7015892]

>>7015879
This is a camera inside a vacuum chamber, without any atmosphere on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

Surprise surprise, it looks the same.

[Anonymous No.7015893]

>>7015735
>She Is Over 50

[Anonymous No.7015894]

perfectly focused!

[Anonymous No.7015895]

>>7015883
>>7015884
do you also believe in china's lunar landing?

[Anonymous No.7015900]

perfect brightness!

[Anonymous No.7015901]

>>7015895
they made a loving recreation.

[Anonymous No.7015906]

>>7015895
something certainly landed on the moon at the same time and position as the lander China claims to have put there.

it's either China's lander or aliums.

[Anonymous No.7015908]

>>7015894
>>7015900
if you think you're making a point, please post more apollo pictures. i fully believe they reveal the hoax, once you look at them carefully. just look at this picture. spend more than just a couple minutes. soak in every detail. really look at each part individually. what are you looking at?

[Anonymous No.7015912]

professional, award-winning quality photography!

[Anonymous No.7015913]

>>7015895
Yes.

[Anonymous No.7015914]

>>7015913

[Anonymous No.7015917]

>>7015908
a picture of the apollo 11 lander, on the moon

>i fully believe they reveal the hoax
no hoax is revealed. you claimed earlier that the astronauts took amazing quality photographs with perfect lighting. i'm showing you that those were flukes, that many of the pictures were garbage.

[Anonymous No.7015919]

I think the most hilarious thing about the lunar landing deniers is that there is observable evidence left behind on the moon that we can check ourselves. Go to any astronomy department at any university. There are mirrors that they left on the moon that you can reflect lasers off of and measure the response, it's actually a commonly used calibration tool.

[Anonymous No.7015923]

>>7015919
ehhhhhhhh, that's not great evidence

the deniers claim that we never put people on the moon, not that we never put equipment on the moon. it's pretty trivial for them to deflect your point by supposing that the US launched mirrors onto the moon to establish the hoax.

[Anonymous No.7015926]

>>7015908
I just don't understand why that picture implies they didn't go to the moon. What's so special about it? It's "too good" the lighting is "too perfect" there are no stars? Looks like hollywood? I don't see it.

Also who the fuck cares if it's true. Do you deny that we sent astronauts to space or just to the moon? What about the ones that did a lunar orbit, are those also fake? Is the ISS fake? Where do you draw the line with how far NASA got? It has almost no impact on the world. At least if 9/11 conspiracy theorists are right it would have consequences.

[Anonymous No.7015929]

>>7015908
>spend more than just a couple minutes. soak in every detail

I never really got a consensus about the name of the logical fallacy where you just get your opponent to waste time looking at something and hope the discussion's moved on by the time they're finished.

[Anonymous No.7015930]

>>7015923
But I feel it undermines the whole premise of their argument. If we had the capability to successfully send equipment to the moon and land it safely without it being broken, and deployed perfectly, it's not an exceedingly enormous leap to get people there

[Anonymous No.7015931]

>>7015835
>[insert major historical event or genocide here] IS A HOAX WAKE UP SHEEPLE
>hey man here's some evidence that proves without doubt that that event is real and happe-
>ALL INFORMATION THAT GOES AGAINST MY CLAIMS IS DISINFO CREATED BY THE ILLUMINATI AND JEWS
every tiem

[Anonymous No.7015933]

>>7015735
www.clavius.org/

[Anonymous No.7015937]

>>7015926
I am saying it is impossible to go into space because god would kill us if we tried.

[Anonymous No.7015938]

>>7015930
>it's not an exceedingly enormous leap to get people there
it shouldn't be a huge leap, but moon deniers have a tendency to twist their argument all the time

sometimes they claim we couldn't have gone to the moon because we had shitty tech, sometimes they claim that we had the rocket technology but no way to make the journey safe for humans

you point out the moon mirrors, they'll say that of course we could have put the equipment up there, it's just that cosmic radiation meant we couldn't send people without killing them.

this is the shit that happens when you abandon a consistent logical framework and use supposition and coincidence to justify your position, and it's impossible to successfully convince people otherwise once they've settled in one opinion in a system like that. don't even try.

[Anonymous No.7015941]

>>7015937
I really hope you're the OP. Then we can just report you for religion vs. science.

But you're not, and I'm not autistic enough to indulge you.

[Anonymous No.7015942]

>>7015912
You need to go to /p/ or something man, that is shit photography.

[Anonymous No.7015943]

>>7015942
>what is reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.7015944]

[Anonymous No.7015946]

>>7015944

[Anonymous No.7015948]

>>7015946
Yeah people used to argue that the module wasn't "space" proof enough years ago. You know what happened? Engineers shit on them with actual evidence and data.

So then people moved on to other things that couldn't be falsified.

>"there's no way this photo was taken on the moon, look at it!"
>"It could absolutely have been taken on the moon you retard"
>"Yeah but that doesn't mean it was because the lunar landing is a hoax and you can't disprove me".

[Anonymous No.7015949]

Ask yourself this. If the moon landing is fake why didn't NASA just make all of their fake pictures and video look exactly like people imagine they should?

[Anonymous No.7015953]

>>7015946

[Anonymous No.7015954]

>>7015879
>i don't think you understand how much the atmosphere on earth affects light.
I don't think that's a rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.7015959]

>>7015948
>Yeah people used to argue that the module wasn't "space" proof enough years ago
yeah, they argued that almost 50 years ago, in the 1960s.

do we have a moon base today in 2015? do we have any manned space travel at all?

the best we have today is low earth orbit, and for some reason even replicating that outside of official government channels is proving to be extremely difficult.

[Anonymous No.7015960]

>>7015959
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

[Anonymous No.7015961]

>>7015959
>do we have a moon base today in 2015? do we have any manned space travel at all?
why would we need it?

we went to the moon once, we got pictures and samples. then we figured out how to get pictures and samples that were just as good without using people. then we realized there's nothing on the moon worth taking pictures of or sampling, so we save ourselves the tremendous energy cost of going there and just stick stick stuff in low orbit.

it's really not that complicated

[Anonymous No.7015964]

>>7015879
>i don't think you understand how much the atmosphere on earth affects light. have you looked up during the day? ever wondered why the sky is blue?
Not at all. Refractive index of air is 1.000293, vacuum is 1. That's barely noticeable. But people have told you that in the last big hoax thread, haven't they?

>with no viewfinder
Hasselblad cameras have no traditional viewfinder like 35mm-cameras. You can look inside the viewfinder from above. Pic related.

>no way of adjusting any of the camera settings from aperture to focus to exposure.
That's just pulled from your ass and you know it.

>any professional photographer they will tell you this is amazing lighting.
Lighting was well known before, so there were hardly any surprises. Also note that those are analog cameras, it's pretty easy to correct any mistakes in development. And believe me those films were development VERY carefully. Also note those were 60mm cameras. They make extremely robust pictures.

[Anonymous No.7015967]

>>7015949
this was top notch special effects at the time.

[Anonymous No.7015968]

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Anonymous No.7015971]

My friend was really conviced that the radiation levels at the moon are too imense for any human.
Do you have information on this? Thanks.

[Anonymous No.7015977]

>>7015967
I actually thought that WAS fake for a second, until I remembered it was on the moon.

Looks real to me

[Anonymous No.7015984]

>>7015971
no appreciable radiation on the moon any radiation encountered en route wasn't life threatening given the shielding on the craft

[Anonymous No.7015987]

>>7015971
Levels of radiaton in space aren't high enough to kill you instantly but if you're EVA for weeks or tried to build a moonbase with no shielding you'd get fucked with longterm radiation poisoning.

[Anonymous No.7015996]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

[Anonymous No.7015998]

NEIL A = A LIEN
We were just sending him back to his homeworld

[Anonymous No.7016008]

>>7015977
>realized that it was fake
>government brainwashing made you think it was real once you saw it was meant to be related to the moon conspiracy

[Anonymous No.7016010]

>>7015998
neil a never existed, how could he walk on the moon if there is no atmosphere there?

[Anonymous No.7016013]

>>7016008
What brainwashing? Do you mean the brainwashing where I remembered that the moon's gravity is 1/6th the Earths gravity?

[Anonymous No.7016017]

>>7016013
The moon has no gravity you retarded sheep. The moon is a hollow alien base created by the reptillians to send mindcontrol signals at earth, fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.7016020]

>>7015996
This guy is on point

[Anonymous No.7016023]

OP you are missing the real picture. Not only was the moon landing a hoax, the moon itself is a hoax and does not actually exist.

[Anonymous No.7016036]

>>7016023
You don't say.

[Anonymous No.7016044]

>>7015971
Radiation levels on the lunar surface could cause harm over weeks or months without proper shielding, but were safe enough for sorties lasting a few days. The bigger issue was getting crews through the Earth's radiation belts.

Fortunately by the time NASA was launching crews beyond the radiation belts, James Van Allen and his research group had successfully mapped out most of the belts. NASA consulted Van Allen's group when plotting the safest courses for the Apollo crews through the belts and effectively minimized the crews' exposure to harmful radiation.

It's worth noting however that all the Apollo crews that flew beyond LEO did suffer from cataracts due to their short exposures in the belt.

[Anonymous No.7016053]

unfortunately even this brief overview is too much reading for most people nowadays

there's a million justifications for space but at the end of day pretty much no progress since 1972 when we decided we had enough of driving around electric cars on the moon.

what the fuck is taking elon musk so long, billionaire who's been spending over a decade at it? it took NASA less time to go from no one in the world having a space program to flying to the moon. this should be easy stuff right?

[Anonymous No.7016064]

>>7016053
>what the fuck is taking elon musk so long, billionaire who's been spending over a decade at it?
I'm sure your commercial spaceflight company is making much better progress.

>it took NASA less time to go from no one in the world having a space program to flying to the moon
Yeah but they also had (adjusted for inflation) about $100 billion to spend with the explicit goal of getting it done as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous No.7016077]

>>7016053
none of that proves anything. it's not an actual argument.

nothing in that picture provides evidence that the moon landings were faked. they show that the moon landings were politically and publicly useful, but no one has ever denied that the moon landings were at least partially publicity stunts.

the relevant point (that money was shoved from the space program to the war effort) is unsupported supposition.

besides, that chronology doesn't even make sense. lunar mission planning begins months to years before the mission takes place, not weeks.

[Anonymous No.7016081]

>>7015735
>Did the U.S actually go to the moon?
Radiation of Van Allen belts is way too high for humans to survive the revel through them.

[Anonymous No.7016082]

>>7016077
>lunar mission planning begins months to years before the mission takes place, not weeks.
This is what "they" want you to believe.

[Anonymous No.7016087]

>>7016081
>[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.7016089]

>>7016081
Nope, not true. While radiation in the Van Allen belts is indeed high, the integrated dosage is not particularly bad.

Question for you: How did they fake the lower gravity?

[Anonymous No.7016093]

>>7016089
>Nope, not true. While radiation in the Van Allen belts is indeed high, the integrated dosage is not particularly bad.
>>7016087
>>[citation needed]

Here you go boys:

https://ronabbass.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/moon-landing-hoax-nasa-unwittingly-reveals-van-allen-radiation-belts-prohibit-human-spaceflight-2min-vid-incl/

>“NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen Radiation belts, and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.”

>“Until that technology is available, our exploits into space will continue to be well below the beginning of radiation belts so intense, Van Allen called them a SEA of DEADLY RADIATION. What we know from the effects of radiation on Earth teaches us that Apollo was nothing more than mere FANTASY.”

[Anonymous No.7016095]

>>7016081
Are you joking? The Apollo flights spent very little time in the fields, experiencing less radiation than your average radioactive materials engineer, and they had plenty of protection, namely a tri-layered aluminum structure similar to the current ones employed on various current satellites.

[Anonymous No.7016096]

>>7015908
I'm extremely curious, but wouldn't the Sun's light block out/overpower/deflect the starlight by racing in the direction we're looking?

[Anonymous No.7016097]

>>7016095
>space ships use aluminum to stop radiation
>OP uses aluminum to stop government mind-control
COINCIDENCE, I THINK NOT

[Anonymous No.7016104]

>>7016089
>Question for you: How did they fake the lower gravity?
That's very simple. Bungee cord & they shot it at higher framerate and then they just slowed it down a bit to make it look like it came from lower gravity.

[Anonymous No.7016106]

>>7016093
Right, evidence provided by some nutjobs' moon hoax blog. Either you provide real scientific evidence (that requires you to actually provide numbers from some study and integrate them etc), or you cross that argument off your list.

[Anonymous No.7016109]

>>7016095
they didn't even worry about the sun!

[Anonymous No.7016111]

>>7016093
>The following is a comment with the username un4g1v3n1


>citation
>a comment reposted on a blog

Nope. I can't believe you could be so retarded to think that was reliable. Try again.

NASA is seeking to protect astronauts on long term missions where galactic comic rays and solar storms become an issue.

[Anonymous No.7016114]

>>7016104
>in 1950 they shot film at 200fps using microfilm
wat

[Anonymous No.7016117]

>>7016104
I can't see any evidence for a bungee cord. Also play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG2PY72-8iY
at 2x speed (youtube is capable of doing that without any tools, just look under settings) and tell me what you see looks like natural movement to you. Also the way the sand is behaving. Or that big stone they kicked away. Or how one of the astronauts falls over and tries to get back up etc etc. All that does not look natural at all to me.

[Anonymous No.7016118]

>>7016114
>in 1950 they went to the moon
wat

[Anonymous No.7016119]

>>7016104
>Bungee cord & they shot it at higher framerate and then they just slowed it down a bit to make it look like it came from lower gravity.

No. No one has ever reproduced the motion in the videos with this method despite trying.

[Anonymous No.7016121]

Moon landing deniers wouldn't believe it wasn't a hoax even if you took them to the moon and let them walk around the landing site.

[Anonymous No.7016125]

>>7016119
That's because NASA has technology 300 years ahead of what civilians have.

[Anonymous No.7016126]

>>7016119
>No one has ever reproduced the motion in the videos
what drugs are you on? just look at this, captain kirk is just around the corner with a two-handed karate chop

[Anonymous No.7016129]

>>7016109
>they didn't even worry about the sun!
The Sun isn't that much more intense above the atmosphere. The visor is like sunglasses, you don't need it when not looking toward the Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)#Solar_intensity

[Anonymous No.7016132]

>>7016129
>The Sun isn't that much more intense above the atmosphere. The visor is like sunglasses, you don't need it when not looking toward the Sun.
you don't even need that, because it's just a movie set

[Anonymous No.7016133]

>>7016109
>what is the magnetophere?

[Anonymous No.7016139]

>>7016133
something that doesn't protect them on the moon silly

our brains literally cannot cope with these distances

[Anonymous No.7016140]

>>7016126
So your argument is that the footage looks weird to you? No further explanation, no real analysis of the footage, you just look at it and say that it looks weird to you? I mean, what did you expect a speed up video of two men walking around on the moon to look like? What are you comparing the footage with?

You are beyond silly right now.

[Anonymous No.7016141]

>>7016140
Hollywood space movies is what real moon landing would look like you imbicile.

[Anonymous No.7016144]

>>7016139
rubber coated nylon, 5 layers of aluminized Mylar, 4 layers of nonwoven Dacron, 2 layers of aluminized Kapton film/Beta marquisette laminate, and Teflon coated Beta filament cloth.
All in the Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment. Designed to keep solar radiation out.

[Anonymous No.7016150]

>>7016119
>No. No one has ever reproduced the motion in the videos with this method despite trying.

Nigga plz. Kubrick has! Watch 2001.

[Anonymous No.7016152]

>>7016144
fuk off i wont be folled by ur mind control reptile

[Anonymous No.7016155]

test

[Anonymous No.7016158]

>>7016155
Yes it works! You can post now!

[Anonymous No.7016163]

>implying that landing on the moon is anywhere close to the most impressive thing that space agencies have done
Do you think the Hubble Telescope is a hoax too?

Anyone that thinks that landing on something and then taking back off without infrastructure or resupplying is in particularly difficult at 1/6th Earth gravity is not very familiar with escape velocities.

Anyone thinks that humans are precious cargo that needs to be uniquely quarantined from all radiation is not very familiar with how sensitive the equipment we ship up there really is (humans wouldn't be the first thing to die, that's for sure).

[Anonymous No.7016165]

>>7016150
lol no. Good movie though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU4Rk0NATNs

[Anonymous No.7016168]

>>7016163
>Do you think the Hubble Telescope is a hoax too?
Low Earth orbit, not past Van Allen Belt so humans could repair it, no humans on board...

not even in the same ballpark of complexity, kid.

[Anonymous No.7016175]

Fact: Planes are a myth

No one has ever went into space, much less the sky.

[Anonymous No.7016178]

>>7016165
Kubrick "directed" fake Moon landings. He even gave clues about it in his movie The Shining,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=excskT6ix_g

http://www.openculture.com/2014/07/stanley-kubrick-faked-the-apollo-11-moon-landing-45-years-ago-or-so-the-conspiracy-theory-goes.html

http://www.alligator.org/opinion/columns/article_6c2f2cd6-3b96-11e3-b7bc-0019bb2963f4.html

[Anonymous No.7016180]

>>7016168
Actually the HST service missions were the highest shuttle missions every flown. They were actually inside the inner belt at apogee, spending far more time than the Apollo astronauts.

[Anonymous No.7016183]

>>7016180
Hubble is NOT past Van Allen Belts dude.

[Anonymous No.7016185]

>>7016178
>He even gave clues about it in his movie The Shining
Top level insanity. This is /sci/, stick to facts not conspiracy.

Every time one of your claims is disproved you just double down and make more insane claims.

[Anonymous No.7016188]

>>7016183
No, it is inside them, which is worse. The flux of particles in the belt is much higher than beyond.

[Anonymous No.7016189]

>open this thread up
>read through
>start laughing uncontrollably
Holy fuck this is comedy gold.

[Anonymous No.7016192]

>>7016188
This is not even remotely true kid, stop acting like you know shit about this subject. You're just making things up because you don't want to admit the moon landings were staged.

[Anonymous No.7016202]

>>7016192
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#mediaviewer/File:Ap8-omni-400.0MeV.png

As you can see the flux is higher.

I used to study energetic solar particles, I know what I'm talking about. The danger beyond the belts is long term effects of galactic cosmic rays and impulsive solar events. There were no earth-directed solar storms during any of the Apollo missions.

[Anonymous No.7016205]

Moon landing is absolutely an hoax. Read Jacob Barnetts "Moon landing is absolutely an hoax".

[Anonymous No.7016208]

>>7016189
OP prolly wandered in from >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7016213]

>>7016192
Like you know anything about the subject, lol. Every single one of your claims has been debunked so far. The problem is that you can't defend them because you have no clue about any of the subjects you discuss and all your information comes from hardly convincing moon hoax nutjobs.

And now go home.

[Anonymous No.7016390]

ITT: science fanboys who know deep down they're stupid, so the government must be right!

[Anonymous No.7016570]

>>7016390
wtf are they doing in that gif?

[Anonymous No.7016611]

>>7016570
oh, you know, just science stuff.

[Anonymous No.7016613]

>>7016611
bungee cord?

[Anonymous No.7016640]

No. They didn't have a rocket large enough or strong enough.

So they sent just a few astronauts at a time instead.

[Anonymous No.7016646]

>>7016640
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.7016666]

The behavior of the dust the astronauts kick up is enough to prove the landings. No amount of slow motion would have recreated that.

[Anonymous No.7016678]

think you better quit talkin' that shit

[Anonymous No.7016686]

>>7015735
Who cares? I just want to know why that video was banned.

[Anonymous No.7016691]

>>7015735
OP likes milfs

[Anonymous No.7016708]

>>7015735
What kind of sick freak just plans extensively and makes up lies on the internet?

[Anonymous No.7016721]

Do you believe in the rosetta landing?
There you go

[Anonymous No.7016730]

>>7016093
van allen himself said he was wrong about the sea of deadly radiation comment

[Anonymous No.7016779]

>>7016721
no? another media stunt

[Anonymous No.7016789]

>>7015900
Actually, your picture is the first ever to make me question if that picture was taken on the moon.

Why are the rungs on the ladder that shape? They should be uniform diameter for weight saving surely?

[Anonymous No.7016792]

>>7015906
The shadow falls in wrong direction...

[Anonymous No.7016796]

>>7016789

[Anonymous No.7016801]

>>7016796
cheesus chrust! was the entire lander held together with kapton tape?

[Anonymous No.7016812]

>>7016801

[Anonymous No.7016819]

Why are the aluminium(?) legs on the landers (us & china) and most of the support structures, that presumably dont have cabling inside all covered in gold foil?

[Anonymous No.7016838]

They dust on the moon proves, without a doubt, that we did in fact go to the moon. Reproducing the movement of the dust as its kicked up in the videos would be impossible on earth.

[Anonymous No.7016845]

>>7016838

[Anonymous No.7016873]

>>7016838
This. The movement of the crew as well. The problem is that you can slow down gravity by slowing down the whole footage, but you slow down EVERYTHING, even movements that have nothing to do with gravity. So while the hopping on the moon may look like recorded on earth when speed up, everything else looks completely unnatural. It's one of those things that is just completely ignored by "non-believers". Then they usually come up with silly stuff like bungee cords without actually explaining how that is supposed to work.

[Anonymous No.7016879]

>>7016792
>The shadow falls in wrong direction...
Shadows you say...

[Anonymous No.7016882]

>>7016879
>What is perspective?
The world must be really difficult for you.

[Anonymous No.7016890]

The absolute best evidence that we actually did land on the Moon is that the Soviets didn't disagree. They fucking hated us. Don't you think if there was any chance at all that it was fake that they would've been all over that shit?

But they didn't say we faked it, because any amateur radio enthusiast could listen in on the mission, and any reasonably competent team could triangulate the radio communications from Apollo 11 to see that it was indeed on the Moon.

[Anonymous No.7016891]

>>7016792
no it's not, dumbass

those are craters you're seeing. in the image, not domes. the light is coming down from the left.

[Anonymous No.7016892]

>>7016819
who says they don't have cabling inside?

it might be useful to know when your struts have touched the ground.

[Anonymous No.7016894]

>>7016879
lmao that line completely fucks up the perspective on the lander's shadow

[Anonymous No.7016900]

>>7015892
>he thinks this chamber is real

how does it feel to be a stooge?

[Anonymous No.7016902]

>>7016900
>he thinks 4chan is real

[Anonymous No.7016905]

>>7016900
>He thinks his eyes are real

[Anonymous No.7016908]

>>7016905
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

checkmate atheist

[Anonymous No.7016910]

>>7016908
way to ruin the joke

[Anonymous No.7016912]

>>7016910
>he thinks Jayden Smith is real

[Anonymous No.7016914]

>>7016908
>>7016910
Seriously man. There's always one guy in the crowd who tries to top the joke and ruins everything.

[Anonymous No.7016916]

>>7015735
can i just see that banned video of the 40 y/o with dat fine ass

[Anonymous No.7016949]

>>7016118
>>7016132
Can't let this slip by without calling the bullshit. You really think that IllumiNASA is competent enough to fake film and photos from the moon, but went right on ahead and published the photos that are so clearly faked that any bored 30 something can pick their conspiracy apart? Both of these photos were from training for Apollo 16. You're either dishonest or an idiot for implying that they're proof of a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.7016950]

let's get back to official pictures instead of samefags spamming garbage

>>7016949
>oy vey if it's not perfect then that's proof it's real!
you are extraordinarily gullible

[Anonymous No.7016967]

When an intellectually dishonest person runs out of actual arguments and can not support their point further, they will resort to other tactics to compensate.
>>7016168
>kid
>>7016192
>denial without a refutation
>kid
>intimidation with no actual substance
There's a lot to learn from this kind of thing. They have no interest in evaluating their own beliefs and will blindly defend them against all questioning. Once you expose a point where they have no actual argument, press them on it. Insert a visual metaphor here.

[Anonymous No.7016970]

>>7016950
>you are extraordinarily gullible
What a convincing argument. You clearly gave up trying. Can't blame you.

[Anonymous No.7016975]

>>7016970
what else is there to say to someone who has made a religion out of a 1960s television production?

[Anonymous No.7016977]

>>7016975
I don't know, what would you like to hear?

[Anonymous No.7016980]

>>7016950
>oy vey if it's not perfect then that's proof it's real!
If you try to fall towards the point and miss, would you orbit it?

You are directing the global government NASApentagonNWO operation to fake a moon landing. All you need to do is work the cameras and lighting and doctor the photos prior to release. The next logical step is to take pictures of the astronaut actors smiling with their helmets off on the moonstage in your book.
No. If you believe that photo was suppose to go with the fakes on the moon, and posted it as proof that IllumiNASA screwed up, you're an idiot. If you posted it to make it look like you're making good points, even though it's obviously of astronauts training (or faking training?) then you're being dishonest. Take your pick.

[Anonymous No.7016983]

>>7016980
the whole thing is a movie set. it was always a movie set. you can see the front screen projection used for the background very clearly here.

go away with your ridiculous nicknames. this is all obviously too much for you to cope with at once. come back in a few years when you've learned a bit more about the world.

[Anonymous No.7016984]

>>7016983
>you can see the front screen projection used for the background very clearly here.
No, you can't. Do you have ANY real argument that hasn't been debunked a million times in these threads already?

[Anonymous No.7016986]

From nat geo's rebuttal of tinfoilers:

there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface."

It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat, he added. "If an object is in a dip, you're going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface."

[Anonymous No.7016991]

>>7016983
Hey, I remember that picture. The rock in the left foreground has a big C on it because it's a movie prop, therefore it was obviously a stage.
It doesn't look like a screen for projections at all either. There's clearly a drop in the terrain. Check the left edge.

go away with your ridiculous nicknames. this is all obviously too much for you to cope with at once. come back in a few years when you've learned a bit more about the world.
I haven't given any nicknames. I'm assuming you're the one throwing "kid" around, though. And nothing better than looking down on someone without providing any actual argument. You clearly have an unassailable position with all of the facts on your side.
Again. Idiot or dishonest. How many hands did these photos pass between, from capturing to publishing? And with a huge conspiracy behind it all, no one was aware enough to say "You know... this one is clearly faked, guys. Let's leave this out."

[Anonymous No.7016993]

>>7016983
Looks like the astronaut and rover are on a vista looking down. Sure you aren't just seeing what you want to see?

[Anonymous No.7016995]

>>7016991
>Again. Idiot or dishonest. How many hands did these photos pass between, from capturing to publishing? And with a huge conspiracy behind it all, no one was aware enough to say "You know... this one is clearly faked, guys. Let's leave this out."
Yu have to understand, NASA is either incredibly stupid or incredibly smart depending on what serves the agenda better.

[Anonymous No.7016998]

>>7016995
It's the same shit with every conspiracy theory. The NWO has smarts and tech from the ancient reptilian alien overlords that can brainwash the masses, but constantly leave Scooby-Doo style clues on everything. They can't help but build a giant pentagram heralding the end of days next to their base and every time a new paper bill comes out, they've handily included their secret plan laid out to those who have opened their eyes. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Anonymous No.7017003]

>>7016165
>sound in space

[Anonymous No.7017004]

>>7016998
>>7016995
bla bla bla circlejerk yourself off, the official story is always correct and the government loves you!

goodnight, enjoy your nasa blue pill

[Anonymous No.7017005]

>>7017004
Good night to you too. And remember to always think critically.

[Anonymous No.7017009]

>>7017004
Kind of sad really.

[Anonymous No.7017031]

Now that there's a lull in the conspiracy tide, can we discuss moonbases? The British Interplanetary Society?

[Anonymous No.7017043]

http://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs

[Anonymous No.7017417]

>>7017043
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHpOZW2CoQ0

in my experience you guys never respond when that movie is torn down as the disingenuous bullshit that it is.

here's another iconic apollo picture. too bad this shows all the signs of photo manipulation. they stitched together multiple images to achieve this scenic shot and it's obvious if you spend more than a minute looking at this picture.

[Anonymous No.7017434]

>>7015954
you still don't understand lighting

[Anonymous No.7017440]

>>7017417
>in my experience you guys never respond when that movie is torn down as the disingenuous bullshit that it is.

I expect it's because points made probably are things like this:

>here's another iconic apollo picture. too bad this shows all the signs of photo manipulation. they stitched together multiple images to achieve this scenic shot and it's obvious if you spend more than a minute looking at this picture.

Which aren't worth wasting half an hour to generate a response for. I'm sure there's something that might be signs of manipulation. It's probably a press photo, and the publisher likely tidied it up for printing. But anyone who thinks this somehow proves the rockets didn't exist when they were seen by thousands of members of the public with their own eyes is clearly trolling or a bloody idiot.

[Anonymous No.7017443]

>>7017440
you didn't watch the video. i don't care why you didn't watch the video but your opinion on why i think people don't respond to the video at that point is completely worthless.

[Anonymous No.7017447]

>>7017417
That video is retarded. He quotes an irrelevant paragraph he found on google that does not even mention high speed video as proof that high speed video existed before 1969.

Then he attempts to rebut the claim that they didn't have recording devices big enough to capture the entire telecast by showing us a machine you can view the video on. This is completely unresponsive to the point, which is that you couldn't record CONTINUOUSLY for longer than 30 seconds. Editing together snippets of 30 second videos and playing it back at high speed would be noticeable.

So not only did he not understand the arguments being made in the original video, his "research" consisted of googling his argument and failing to find anything.

[Anonymous No.7017448]

>>7017447
no, he covers that argument as well if you actually watched the whole thing. you are making yourself look really dumb, it's good this is all anonymous you can pretend to be someone else in your next posts.

[Anonymous No.7017449]

>>7017448
Where does he cover it? He doesn't. He brings up completely irrelevant facts without an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.7017452]

>>7017449
go fucking troll someone else, you didn't watch the whole thing, be honest with yourself at least, i don't care if you lie to me but why are you lying to yourself?

hint: because you're trying to protect a belief that is tied to your identity

[Anonymous No.7017453]

>>7017448
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TelJ75pzP4

[Anonymous No.7017455]

>>7017443

Smooth genetic fallacy.

[Anonymous No.7017457]

>>7017452
I just finished it retard. I watched the first 20 minutes and then responded to the points he was done making.

[Anonymous No.7017461]

>>7015912

that's actually pretty bad. It's not very well lit and it's out of focus. A professional photographer would consider that shot to be unusable.

[Anonymous No.7017464]

>>7017453
you're right, you've convinced me. if that kind of "logical argument" works for you, then it's proof to me that you've lost the ability to think critically and aren't worth the time.

"you know how i know it was real? it was impossible for them to fake it! that's why it's 2015 and we never left low earth orbit since 1972! because it's impossible to fake it!"

[Anonymous No.7017465]

>>7017464
this is the kind of thing they used those backdrops for, by the way.

makes for impressive special effects but just not quite good enough today