moon hoax thread

[Did we go to the moon? I legit(...) No.7523031]

And don't give me any of your conspiracy bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7523037]

>>7523031
Eat shit and die nigger.

[Anonymous No.7523086]

Take a telescope and look at the landing site by yourself. You'll know we made it.

[Anonymous No.7523280]

>>7523086
No, you cant see the landing sites with a telescope.
Stop this meme please

[Anonymous No.7523309]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[Anonymous No.7523314]

There's videos of them throwing things on the moon, and they always arc in a way that can only happen by being in the moon's gravity. Throwing something on earth then speeding up or slowing down the footage wouldn't change the actual parabola. The objects also spin in multiple directions so you know there's not just wires or strings on them. This enough is proof.

[Anonymous No.7523324]

How Could We Land, On The Moon If It Doesn't Exist

[Anonymous No.7523331]

>>7523031
It's actually a giant Gunman.

[Anonymous No.7523434]

It would literally be easier to go to the moon than it would have been to fake going to the moon.

[Anonymous No.7523483]

>>7523434
Literally a retard point of view.

[Anonymous No.7523497]

>>7523031
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.7523523]

>>7523483

No, that's just accurate. Building a spacecraft that could get to the moon would have to be just part of the hoax. No way to fake that. So if you can do that, why not just go to the moon? That way you wouldn't have to bother with the absolute secrecy of thousands of people for 50 years or developing some kind exotic technology to fool Soviet monitoring.

[Anonymous No.7523543]

>>7523483
Nope,it's actually true. Faking the live footage alone would have required film technology decades ahead of its time. The video below is a well informed film expert explaining why faking the footage in '69 would have been impossible.

http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

[Anonymous No.7523632]

>>7523483
He's right. You have to fool billions of people with doctored footage and thousands of professional scientists and astronomers who are watching your every move.

[Anonymous No.7523660]

Any conspiracy theory involving space can general be considered utter rubbish. Something about astrophysics seems to attract utter lunatics.

[Anonymous No.7523676]

>>7523660
Nibiru the myth and prophecy is bullshit, but Im convinced there is at least one or two large objects far out in the solar system with at least the mass of Earth, otherwise how do you explain theses bizarre orbits.

[Anonymous No.7523955]

>>7523676
That's a very biased picture because it only shows two of several billion orbits in the Oort cloud. Why aren't the orbits nice and circular? Well BECAUSE THEN WE WOULDNT FUCKING BE ABLE TO FIND THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE TOO FAR AWAY
There are probably billions of nice circular orbits out there.
The only objects we can observe are the ones with highly elliptical orbits that are currently near the sun.

[Anonymous No.7523988]

>>7523309
those third party evidences can be debunked if you do through research.

for one, russia would need the ballistic data and telemetry data to track it with a radio and the frequency.
NASA and the FCC, to this day, have not released the telemetry data and in fact lost it. What nasa did is gave russia a radio set and told them to listen to it.

this is a fly by near the moon from japan, do you think this is real or cgi?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1KWtG66lEQ

mike collins did not remember seeing any stars as he orbited the moon, he and the other astronoghts refused to give interviews and mike collins later retracted his statement. look at the body language when they are asked if they did see stars, especially mike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA

we did not go to the moon.

[Anonymous No.7523992]

>>7523523
>or developing some kind exotic technology to fool Soviet monitoring

Which would have been utterly impossible because the Soviet Union was technologically equal to us in every way that mattered and they were watching us like a mother fucking hawk. All those systems to detect the launch of nuclear missiles and they can't track an object going to and coming back from the moon? I don't fucking think so. And I think we all know the Soviets would have loved nothing more than to call us out for lying.

[Anonymous No.7523996]

>>7523314
>moon's gravity

gravitons are hypothetical fyi.


also, to think we can build vacuum chambers but cant build a big enough vacuum chamber to do those experiments and tamper with the film to simulate theortical gravity is foolish on your part. the military can hire private contractors to build underground bunkers like no ones business.

[Anonymous No.7524004]

>>7523632
bullshit.

military works with compartmentalization. thats a fact.

to think they cant do that is to be misinformed.
do i need to remind you about how many people have come forward over the years on corruption in general?

[Anonymous No.7524006]

>>7524004
And your point is?

[Anonymous No.7524007]

>>7524004
I don't think you quite understand the scale of the Apollo program, they would've had to build the entire Saturn V fleet, all the Lunar Modules and all the scientific equipment, and then launch them, send them to the moon and not actually bother putting people in it, despite having the full capability to do so (thanks to the absurd number of people involved in the project).

[Anonymous No.7524014]

>>7524007
Don't forget robots to install those mirrors we use every year to determine the exact distance of the moon. You know, robots that weren't invented until decades afterward.

[Anonymous No.7524015]

>>7524014
And also all the added effort of making a gigantic vacuum enclosed soundstage.

[Anonymous No.7524018]

>>7524014
Well they could've stuck retroreflectors on things like the Surveyor probes

[Anonymous No.7524022]

>>7524004
While I agree with that point of view, I also think it presents as a counter-argument.

The 70s were a big time of whistleblowers and bullshit government conspiracies being revealed, like Watergate or MKUltra. You'd think that in such times, such a vast giant conspiracy like the moon hoax would also get more whistleblowers.

It just seems like too much work for nothing. That's the biggest argument against a conspiracy. Going to the moon didn't solve anything than perhaps as a little piece of propaganda for the time and as an inspiration for more people to pursue science.

Of course, I do share some skepticisms with the moon landings, most obviously the fact that people just stopped tried going to the moon for almost half a century since then. You'd think that in 50 years technology has evolved to the point that going to the moon would be a breeze.
And don't say ""it's not worth it" because lots of scientists and even politicians campaigned for doing stuff on the moon again.

[Anonymous No.7524032]

>>7524006
my point is you have a case of Stockholm syndrome for nasa.


>>7524007
what makes you think they went to the moon at all?
all they would have to do is build a rocket, film a capsule land in the ocean, hide the astronauts for a week in a city where they are not well known, fake telemetry data for com control, and have a film crew do the work with access to a vacuum chamber.
this vaccume chamber was built in 1969 and deommissioned around the time of the last apollo mission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility#Thermal-Vacuum_Test_Chamber


the only expenses are the rocket, film and art, and laboratory. you can fit all that with a few billion dollars.

you dont understand that the military builds large aircraft carriers just to show off with no budget.

[Anonymous No.7524035]

>>7524018
But how would they bring 400kg of rocks?

[Anonymous No.7524052]

>>7524032
>This vacuum chamber
Too small

[Anonymous No.7524054]

>>7524032
Yeah, I don't understand the line of thought that if we saw a rocket launched in space, do we automatically assume it was completely capable of going to the moon and achieving the manned missions that haven't been replicated since. Rockets were sent in space or the moon before and after. Just not with humans in them.

[Anonymous No.7524056]

>>7524022
>And don't say ""it's not worth it" because lots of scientists and even politicians campaigned for doing stuff on the moon again.
Would cost a lot, so much so that only governments can really afford it, and there's only really two that could do it, Russia and the US, both of which are heavily invested in the ISS at the moment.

The reason we went the first time was the Cold War, that was the only way to justify the enormous expenditure of the Apollo program and there's no real thing going on geopolitically like that currently. We certainly have a lot more experience in rocketry and life support etc (especially thanks to the aforementioned ISS) so that's lowered development costs already (since we already know that shit).

>>7524035
Return probes. So basically they would've had to do the entire thing anyway to fake it, plus adding the extra cost of leaving people behind in a soundstage.

[Anonymous No.7524062]

>>7524056
>Return probes. So basically they would've had to do the entire thing anyway to fake it, plus adding the extra cost of leaving people behind in a soundstage.
The probes were too small to bring such quantity and variety of rocks, they would have need to launch 100`s of them.

[Anonymous No.7524064]

>>7524032
>all they would have to do is build a rocket,

A rocket that is capable of getting to the moon...

[Anonymous No.7524066]

>>7524062
Or just a big Lunar lander sized one.

With people in

[Anonymous No.7524072]

>>7524056
>Return probes. So basically they would've had to do the entire thing anyway to fake it, plus adding the extra cost of leaving people behind in a soundstage.
Like I said in here >>7524054 why is that considered such a big deal? Rockets were being built on a constant basis.

No one argues that we never went into space or on the moon. People argue that we never sent humans there. You don't have to build a rocket to fake the human part, just build a rocket like before and pretend it has humans in it.

[Anonymous No.7524084]

>>7524072
But why? If you have the capability to do so (and they certainly did back then, unlike now) then why would you not? Why would you pretend to do it, going so far as to build all these technologies, rockets, landers, spacesuits etc and then not actually bothering?

Just seems a bit daft to me.

[Anonymous No.7524091]

>>7524022
i know we didnt go to the moon.

missing telemetry data, erased tapes, FCC control over radio broadcast, contradictions of astronaughts and the first mission crew refusing to take interviews for a long time, missing or fake moon rocks, errors in photographs and film, ect ect.
its a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI

[Anonymous No.7524092]

>>7524072
>Rockets were being built on a constant basis.

Right, because all rockets are the same, right? hurr durr

[Anonymous No.7524093]

>>7524072
>You don't have to build a rocket to fake the human part, just build a rocket like before and pretend it has humans in it.
Why do you think its not possible to put a crew in them?

[Anonymous No.7524112]

>>7524084
The argument is that they were not capable of doing it. They were trying though, both the americans and the soviets.

What hoaxers claim (at least the more sensible part of them) is not that we faked the part where we built rockets and spacesuits. We were doing that for quite a while before and we're still doing it today. Their claims are that US was not capable of actually going to the moon with humans on-board, just like the russians failed to do so. And instead of owning up to their failures, they decided to get the upper-hand by tricking the world.

>>7524093
I don't know, I'm not really a hoaxer, just a bit skeptical about it. Like I said earlier, the WHY part is the hardest to explain about this conspiracy.

I'm just trying to explain that the whole "they built the stuff already, why not just use it?" argument is not really fair. There are obviously some bigger technological hurdles for manned lunar missions than for unmanned ones (I don't know them personally). Otherwise the soviets would've eventually managed to get men on the moon too.

[Anonymous No.7524134]

>>7524072
>>7524084
where are people getting the idea that faking the moon landing isn't possible or more expensive?


you are not getting the picture. they just have to make it in low orbit and land in the ocean without any pilots in there at all or just like all the other space missions before it.
You imply EVERYONE knows physics and math to such a degree that they wouldnt question it, but they dont. If you can get people to think that smoking doesnt cause cancer, or fluoride is healthy for you then its very easy to have a few people to make the world think we went to the moon and have a few mathematicians and notable payroll NASA physicists explain some George Lucas costume suits and students and people will eat it, its not hard at all until people start looking at it and finding out the errors.
floruide here even though the FDA recommends it for teeth:
1. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/27/health/ap-us-med-fluoride-levels.html?_r=0
3. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
4. http://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation


based on my example how easy it is to say floruide is good for children dental hygine and safe in the water and how easy it is to tell those who have been warning against it as crazy people.

moon landing is a lie.

[Anonymous No.7524139]

>>7524134
Posting flouride links is not the best argument for why we didn't go to the moon fyi

[Anonymous No.7524150]

>>7524134
Non-sequitur

[Anonymous No.7524164]

>>7524139
you are not getting the concept.

have a few people who know how to make soundness to the claim like payroll mathematicians, physicists, and notable astronauts to explain away the costumes and set pieces a la george rodenberry. most people would just hum along and even those studying physics because who knows space better than those who went or those who have access to all the data.
mathematicians can come up with some bullshit and make it sound with equations. its not hard to fool people with magic tricks.

the fluoride problem is a real life example and there have been people who were warning against it for years because they took a good look at it.

Let take a good look at the evidence for a moon landing. I hope you understand the concept of parallax for this because it exposes the integrity of NASAs claims.
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

[Anonymous No.7524172]

>>7524112
>There are obviously some bigger technological hurdles for manned lunar missions than for unmanned ones (I don't know them personally). Otherwise the soviets would've eventually managed to get men on the moon too.
The problem the Soviets had was that the N-1 was a hugely overcomplicated piece of shit, with a huge number of engines that like to burn through and cause explosions. Here's a couple sentences from Wikipedia that summarise it very well:

>N1-L3 was underfunded and undertested, and started development in October 1965, almost four years after the Saturn V. The project was badly derailed by the death of its chief designer Sergei Korolev in 1966. Each of the four attempts to launch an N1 failed; during the second launch attempt the N1 rocket crashed back onto its launch pad shortly after liftoff and exploded, resulting in one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history.

If NASA managed to have 4 Saturn V failures including a launch-pad-destroying explosion I don't think they would've been allowed to carry on.

[Sage No.7524176]

>>7524139
Just hide the thread guy

[Anonymous No.7524179]

>>7524164
>http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=79.0

[Anonymous No.7524182]

>>7524179
>Seriously, visiting that site will drop your IQ by tens of points within seconds.
Kek

[Anonymous No.7524196]

once you realize that the moon landing is a lie, you can put everything else that NASA does or pushes out into the trash where it belongs.


grav·i·ton
ˈɡravəˌtän/
nounPhysics
noun: graviton; plural noun: gravitons
a hypothetical quantum of gravitational energy, regarded as a particle.

"In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson."
Lightman, A. P.; Press, W. H.; Price, R. H.; Teukolsky, S. A. (1975). "Problem 12.16". Problem book in Relativity and Gravitation. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08162-X.

[Anonymous No.7524201]

>>7524172
>If NASA managed to have 4 Saturn V failures including a launch-pad-destroying explosion I don't think they would've been allowed to carry on.
Maybe, but then again, Apollo 1 was a complete disaster, which is also a considerate part of the conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.7524203]

>>7524176
butthurt because you know what the fuck i was on about.

if the fda can lie to people about flouride being safe and great for teeth, then its easy to fool people that we can go to the moon.

this thread is done. we did not go to the moon.

[Anonymous No.7524210]

>>7524201
Grissom hung a lemon on the module for everyone to see apparently.

[Anonymous No.7524212]

>>7524201
Apollo 1 was a different type of disaster on a different scale to that of 4 consecutive launch failures and the loss of a launch pad. The Soviets canned theirs and it was kept secret, imagine what the public pressure on NASA would've been like if the same thing happened to some Saturn Vs.

[Anonymous No.7524242]

>>7524212
>The Soviets canned theirs and it was kept secret, imagine what the public pressure on NASA would've been like if the same thing happened to some Saturn Vs.

> the N1 was kept secret almost until the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991;

Hmm, not sure if it helps with the whole conspiratard stuff though hehe. The whole point of the moon hoax conspiracy was that NASA DID hide shit from the public.

[Anonymous No.7524250]

Daily reminder that anyone who is presented with the evidence that we went to the moon and still doesn't believe is mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.7524254]

>>7523031

If we can get a full space-station into space, what makes you think we couldn't get a rocket to get to the moon?

[Anonymous No.7524256]

>>7524242
The launches of the Saturn V were very public, broadcast on television, commentated on radio, people out near KSC itself etc. If they had 4 launches and one of them was a gigantic explosion it would've been known about.

Baikonur is in the middle of nowhere and as you said, the N1 itself was a secret until the end of the Soviet Union, 20 years after the failed N-1 launches. Even then the existence (and destruction) of the launch sites was known by the US thanks to satellite imagery so they figured the Soviets had a bigass rocket explode.

[Anonymous No.7524259]

>>7524254

I've ever heard people say that " hurr durr no one can survive outside of the van ellen belts"


>>7524256
This. It's not like it's in a remote area, it's like an hour from fucking disneyworld. You can see even small rockets launch from miles down the beach. I saw an Atlas IIA launch in 2001 from cocoa beach, and that's 10 miles away.

[Anonymous No.7524260]

>>7524242
NASA has the obligation to show everything since is funded by tax payer money.

[Anonymous No.7524264]

We do have pictures of the landing sites.

[Anonymous No.7524268]

>>7524264

[Anonymous No.7524271]

>>7524260
>NASA has the obligation to show everything since is funded by tax payer money.

lol so true, brb lemme go ask for stealth bomber blueprints

[Anonymous No.7524274]

>>7524271
NASA, famous for their stealth bombers.

[Anonymous No.7524276]

>>7524271
pls do

[Anonymous No.7524293]

>>7524264
>>7524268
> some blurry pixels on screen next to many other blurry pixels
> let me tell you what they actually are by pointing them with arrows

[Anonymous No.7524295]

>>7524293
ur a dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.7524309]

>>7524271
You've gotta be kidding

[Anonymous No.7524319]

>>7524309
>You've gotta be kidding
Sure, he's being sarcastic, but lets face it, NASA isn't obligated to share everything it knows with the public.

[Anonymous No.7524397]

Do not respond to this psyop. You are wasting your time the people spreading this meme are being paid, or are useful idiots who are too stupid to reason with. Polite sage.

[Anonymous No.7524663]

>>7523483
Literally a retarded comment

[Anonymous No.7524667]

>>7524663
Dumbfuck nigger

[Anonymous No.7524672]

>>7523314
Thanks! That's all I needed.

[Anonymous No.7524743]

>>7524022
>scientists and even politicians campaigned for doing stuff on the moon again.
But what they want to do is conceptually boring compared to being there for the first time. It's to do little experiments and collect samples and such. Nothing revelatory. Until we can get a man to Mars, you won't see people excited for manned space flight again.

[Anonymous No.7524751]

>>7524112
In what ways did having humans on board make it much harder? This is not a hypothetical. I am interested in the details beyond just the obvious stuff like stockpiling food and having suits that were airtight with air supplies, etc.

[Anonymous No.7524754]

>>7523280
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/moon/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

[Anonymous No.7524757]

>>7524196
>the graviton is expected to be massless
Impossible IMO

I'd say maybe 0.0000...1 mass

[Anonymous No.7524761]

>>7524091
I like how you just summarized the now familiar points with
>ect ect.
Really gives it a flair of intellectual superiority.

[Anonymous No.7524767]

>>7524754
>>7524761
>" If you explore the Apollo landing sites with a small telescope, you won’t be able to see any of the objects left behind by the astronauts, as they are all too small to be resolved by even the largest telescopes."

>"In fact, it's only in the last two years that we’ve been able to photograph the landing sites in detail from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter."
http://www.space.com/13485-moon-skywatching-craters-apollo-landing-sites.html


JUST