Man never landed on the moon

[Anonymous No.8888029]

The science just doesn't agree, let's see why:

>LM has the computing power of a wristwatch
>several thousand pounds of thrust can't even make a small hole in the lunar surface
>Van Allen belt radiation levels would have fried the astronauts
>LM cooking in the sun for several days, somehow the closed system that was the LM didnt heat up to lethal levels

If you believe the moon landings were legit you are the equivalent of a creationist.

[Anonymous No.8888042]

This sounds wrong, but I don't know enough about engineering to tell you why.

[Anonymous No.8888060]

>>8888029
I can say that you are wrong about Van Allen belt radiation, they planned an orbit that passed through the less radioactive zone, moreover this radiation is dangerous only after a very long time (many days or even months) spent in it and apollo astronauts stayed something like one hour (i can't remember exactly) in the less radioactive zone of Van Allen belt.

[Anonymous No.8888063]

Radiations = instantly fried is brainlet reasoning

[Anonymous No.8888088]

>>8888029
You're a fucking idiot. All the the conspiracy shit has been debunked. Next you're going to wonder why there are no stars in the pictures taken on the moon being completely ignorant of how cameras work. http://www.clavius.org/

[Anonymous No.8888098]

>>8888029
Oh look I wonder were all the computing power was??

[Anonymous No.8888104]

>>8888029
>The science just doesn't agree
>posts conjecture
>doesn't post any science at all

Sage

[Anonymous No.8888209]

>>8888029
>>LM has the computing power of a wristwatch
impying Columbus couldn't sail to the new world because he didn't have GPS
>>several thousand pounds of thrust can't even make a small hole in the lunar surface
implying a helicopter weighing several thousand pounds makes a hole every time it takes off
>>Van Allen belt radiation levels would have fried the astronauts
>>LM cooking in the sun for several days, somehow the closed system that was the LM didnt heat up to lethal levels
implying lunar temps aren't super fucking cold

[Anonymous No.8888285]

>>8888098
How did those old school computers even work?

[Anonymous No.8888292]

The russians knew it's impossible that's why they didn't even bother trying. In the US however, the rednecks ate up the fake shit from from tv because muh patriotism.

[Anonymous No.8888293]

>>8888104
What is asserted without science can be dismissed without science.

[Anonymous No.8888461]

>>8888029
but are they landing on the moon these days?

[Anonymous No.8888707]

>>8888029

>no problems here
>what is rapid exhaust dissipation in vacuum
>implying the Apollo spacecraft didn't take inclined trajectories specifically to loop up and over the Van Allen BELTS in order to get to the Moon, and implying they would've even gotten sick from the short term exposure they would've had if they passed right through them
>what are thermal radiators and reflective surfaces and how do they work

maybe do some research instead of being incredulous at things you don't understand, big nig

[Anonymous No.8888711]

>>8888292
>implying the soviets wouldn't be tripping over their own erections on the way to expose a fake moon landing by the americans

[Anonymous No.8888714]

>>8888711
good point, OP is a Russian shill

[Anonymous No.8888734]

>>8888292
The Russians had a pretty badass moon rocket. After their second attempt at launching it, the rocket fell back onto the launch pad in something like the largest man-made nonnuclear explosion in history, destroying the entire complex. They tried it two more times but they had already pretty much given up hope.

[Anonymous No.8888758]

>>8888088
He's right. The digits align almost perfectly.

[Anonymous No.8888826]

>>8888711

I see this argument come up time and time again, the Soviets were receiving food aid from the U.S at the time, and bitching about a hoax would just make them look like sore losers. ow do you prove something like the moon landings didn't happen? Fucking brainlets.

[Anonymous No.8888827]

>>8888029

[Anonymous No.8888848]

>>8888827

>thinks climate change is man-made
>actually believes in the Apollo hoax
>fell for the college scam

And that, kids, is how you spot a brainlet. I bet you also think a bearded man living in a cave in Afghanistan made people fly planes into buildings.

[Anonymous No.8888868]

>>8888848
you're a scientifically illiterate moron. back to /pol with your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8888938]

>>8888826
>ow do you prove something like the moon landings didn't happen?

Isn't that exactly what you're trying to do? You fucking retarded nigger?

[Anonymous No.8889445]

>>8888293
Then your arguments can be dismissed without science.

[Anonymous No.8889573]

>>8888029

Is it possible to see the remains on the space shuttle on the moon with a telescope or something?

[Anonymous No.8889595]

>>8889573

No its not, contrary to moon nerd claims. This, together with muh soviets and muh but too many people would have to be silent! is one of favourite arguments of the NASA shills.

[Anonymous No.8889604]

>>8889595
go away you fucking braindead conspiracy theory pandering shithead. This is /sci not /shitpostyourbullshit

[Anonymous No.8889614]

>>8889573
Not with a ground based telescope (or at least I've never heard of it), but there are satellites orbiting the Moon that can get pretty great images of the landing sites.

[Anonymous No.8889878]

>>8889604

>muh conspiracy theories!
>cheers his shitlib "comedians" when they accuse Trump of working for Russia like a typical left-wing /sci/ nerd

[Anonymous No.8889900]

>>8889878
lmfao youre the only one pushing conspiracy theories in this thread you inbred piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.8889901]

>>8888888

[Anonymous No.8890014]

>>8888285
They're not computers. That's the mission control room. The consoles in there were connected to computers, communication systems, sensors, cameras, etc. elsewhere. Notice that they've all got desk space for papers, rather than conventional keyboards.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/apollo-flight-controller-101-every-console-explained/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ

However, transistor computers were standard before the Apollo Program started, and minicomputers were available (appliance-computers the size of a fridge or a desk, rather than taking up a room).

NASA used five standard IBM System/360 mainframes in the Real Time Computing Complex for the Apollo 11 mission. I believe they were all the J75 model, 32-bit computers with 1 megabyte of core memory (like RAM) each, and capable of about 1 million instructions per second. ~30 mb hard drives were available, and ~40 mb reel-to-reel tapes (many of which could be simultaneously connected to a single computer and kept reading, writing, or seeking). These were new in 1966, so about the newest thing that was practical to have built a highly complex system on top of by 1969. One was used to receive, process, and dispatch all of the data from the spacecraft to the control room.

Teletype machines were a standard interactive interface for computers in the first half of the 1960s. That's basically an electric typewriter that can send your keypresses to the computer, and print responses on the paper for you to read. The technology for this was already old from telegraph systems even when vacuum tube computers were invented.

Off-the-shelf video terminals were brand new technology during the Apollo missions. In the control room, NASA used custom consoles based on more mature technology, like indicator lights and mechanical counters, rather than the typical modern approach of doing things in software. Their arrangements for video displays were complex, with lots of custom hardware.

[Anonymous No.8890035]

>>8889573
>Is it possible to see the remains on the space shuttle on the moon
I should certainly hope not, as the space shuttle never went anywhere near the moon

[Anonymous No.8890041]

>>8890035
How would the nazis have gotten on the dark side, then?

[Anonymous No.8890046]

>>8890035
The space shuttle is the only man-made object on the moon visible from Earth with the naked eye.

[Anonymous No.8890062]

>>8890014
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ
As I watch this, I'm starting to realize how NASA can carry on spending so much money to do so little.

If you look back at this insanity (which at the bottom of things, let's remember, was all to manage a week-long trip for three men) as your starting point, it's hard to imagine ever trimming it down to some reasonable multiple of fuel costs. You have to start over from first principles, abandon what you've very expensively learned about "how to do it".

This is what it looks like when people really throw money at a problem.

[Anonymous No.8890107]

Why are there photographs of tracks on the surface of the moon that can be identified as tracks from a rover space vehicle, photographs taken by the Chinese government?

Do you realise it would be easier for the US to actually go to the moon, that. To fake the moon landing and convince the entire world that they did it, including the Soviet union. And pay off 40000 scientists to keep this a secret?

[Anonymous No.8890125]

>>8890107
I actually believe it's possible that the manned landings were faked even though NASA developed the capability of doing them with a reasonable probability of success, for the simple reason that a public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable.

The missions had, after all, no practical purpose but to give the appearance of having done them. Many things could have gone wrong, which would have turned the propaganda exercise into a national humiliation. Even the majority of people working on the project could have been deceived. Only a small core of people, perhaps a few hundred, would have to know the truth.

[Anonymous No.8890171]

>>8888063
thats why i dont own a microwave

or a radio and my house is 100mm of copper

[Anonymous No.8890187]

OP is just another brainlet that exists to make everyone feel smarter than they are. Good guy OP

Have fun at your Mickey D's job tomorrow, don't forget to leave the pickles off my burger

[Anonymous No.8890189]

this guy knows about film and photography technology. he says it would have been impossible to fake the moon landing at that time:

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

[Anonymous No.8890214]

>>8890125
Weird, I guess missions like apollo 13 were fake failures, just to keep people off the scent?

[Anonymous No.8890226]

>>8889604
>/sci
>not /sci/
Back to where you came from

[Anonymous No.8890246]

>>8888734
Source

[Anonymous No.8890252]

>>8888029

>The science just doesn't agree

It does, that's why we went to the Moon 6 times.

[Anonymous No.8890325]

>>8888029
So where did all the Moon rocks come from?

[Anonymous No.8890330]

>>8890125
>The missions had, after all, no practical purpose but to give the appearance of having done them

[Anonymous No.8890346]

>>8888029
Some of the world's smartest people like Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson all agree that it was done.

Case closed.

[Anonymous No.8890350]

>>8890346
What about Michio Kaku?

[Anonymous No.8890351]

>>8888029
>Half a million engineers and contractors can keep a secret.

[Anonymous No.8890353]

>>8890350
Even he agrees they landed, so you're just proving my point.

[Anonymous No.8890793]

>>8890107

>it's easier to land humans safely on another celestial body, an endeavour requiring hundreds of thousands of people working on it and no room for error, and bring them back safely, than to film the moon 'landings' on a Hollywood sound stage.

It's like you brainlets don't even think before you speak and just mindlessly repeat the stupidest of 'arguments'. I've heard pretty much every stupid shit under the sun but this one takes the cake.

[Anonymous No.8890798]

>>8890252

>it doesn't, that's why we had to fake it 6 times

FTFY

[Anonymous No.8890803]

>>8890346
>>8890350

Were Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku there when it happened? The opinion of your pop scientist-actors is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.8890809]

>>8890793
You could try actually addressing the argument, rather than just calling it stupid.

[Anonymous No.8890842]

>>8890809

I did address your argument in the greentext, moron.

[Anonymous No.8890875]

>>8890798

If it were faked the Soviet Union would've uncovered it long time ago.

[Anonymous No.8890903]

>>8890875

already debunked
>>8888826

[Anonymous No.8890961]

>>8890214
>I guess missions like apollo 13 were fake failures, just to keep people off the scent?
Apollo 13 was a dramatic and impressive abort, not an abject failure, and it came after two successful moon landings. Yeah, it's exactly the kind of hiccup you'd throw in to make the whole thing seem more real without hurting the impressiveness of the program. Hollywood made a movie out of it later because it plays out like perfectly scripted drama.

Businesses fake this sort of screw-up with new clients sometimes to impress them with their (apparent) ability and eagerness to fix problems that arise.

Anyway, it's not that I believe the moon landings were faked, it's that I believe it's possible they were, without believing they didn't have the technology to actually do it. The motive is there (to ensure success), and it played out in a way consistent with how they'd do it.

>>8890330
You can't possibly believe that the Apollo missions had some practical purpose outside of having people believe that the USA had accomplished them.

Claims that the moon landings were faked resonate because on a deeper level it was all fake regardless of whether they actually did it: just a propaganda exercise / pork program. It wasn't about science, or exploration, or opening a new frontier. It was about embarassing the Russians and silencing the critics of capitalism. It was only about appearances and paychecks.

If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they would have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.

[Anonymous No.8890980]

>>8890961
>If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they would have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.
err...
>If it wasn't a big put-on in one way or another, they wouldn't have just shut it down and not gone back for half a century.

[Anonymous No.8891133]

>>8890903

Strawman arguments aren't arguments. Next.

[Anonymous No.8891832]

>>8888029
>This "debate" again

[Anonymous No.8891864]

>>8891832
/Thread.

Moon landing hoaxers are the equivalent of flat-earthtards.

>What is radio telemetry
>What is real-time radio telemetry
>What is continuous real-time radio telemetry
>What is triangulated real-time radio telemetry

Yet conspiratards are unable to grasp the applications Pythagorean theorem and radio waves.

>But muh moon rock shadows
>Muh Val Alien radiotard belt
>Muh Kubrick

To all disbelievers in this thread, please tell us, how exactly did the Americans fake unidirectional microwave data containing voice, video and bio-telemetry emanating from the surface of the moon in real time?

[Anonymous No.8891956]

>>8891864
Microwaves were first bounced off the moon in 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Diana

[Anonymous No.8891978]

I always like the spin Mitchell and Webb put on it.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Anonymous No.8891999]

>>8891978
"They had to build a big rocket anyway, so..." is not much of an argument.

There was a lot more going on than the big rocket, which could have been developed as an extra large ICBM (in fact, that's what the stage one engines were designed for).

[Anonymous No.8892094]

>>8891956
At a bandwidth sufficient to carry voice, video and other analog data? Also:

>What is unidirectional RF?

Weak argument. Next.

[Anonymous No.8892157]

>>8891999
It is not the only argument.

>big-ass expensive rocket
>Soviet Union could detect the mission as well
>satellite and telescopes today can see the LM landing site
>thousands of NASA personnel can keep a secret as big as this
>actual moon rocks
>telemetry

taking each point individually, you might be able to make up some plausible excuse on how the Moon landings were faked, but together the evidence just too much in favor of an actual landing

[Anonymous No.8892195]

>>8892094
>At a bandwidth sufficient to carry voice, video and other analog data?
Anything that can be broadcast can be bounced.

>>What is unidirectional RF?
Explain how you think this is relevant, so I can explain how you're wrong and laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.8892200]

>>8891133

Do you even know what a strawman is, brainlet? That the Soviet Union had a motive to shut its trap is not a strawman.

>>8891864

>muh telemetry!

How do you know the data came from Apollo on the moon, and not a sallite secretly launched at night from Vandenberg? Mods, please change this board's name to /blt/ (condensed from 'brainlet').

[Anonymous No.8892203]

>>8891978

This is /sci/, not /tv/, moron.

[Anonymous No.8892245]

>>8891999
If you're going to actually build a rocket powerful enough to push the required amount of payload to the moon, build actual LEMs and CSMs and put them on top of it, and then successfully launch 7 of them, there really isn't a whole lot left that would make faking it worthwhile. At that point it's just a bit of math to get your trajectories right, so you might as well, you know, just go to the moon.

Once that's established, there really is no reason to believe there was a hoax other than there being some other fundamental obstacle to getting there, like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist. People who claim humans can't go into space because of radiation are simply misinformed.

[Anonymous No.8892379]

>>8890125
>public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable

Are you aware that the 3 man crew of Apollo 1 was killed on the ground in a fire during a test of the capsule?

Are you aware that Challenger exploded during ascent, killing the 6 astronauts and one civilian schoolteacher on board, while the scene was broadcast live to classrooms full of kids across America?

Are you aware that Columbia burned up during reentry because of damage of the heat shield, killing another 7 astronauts after their orbital mission had been completed?

[Anonymous No.8892386]

>>8890171
fake

meth heads would've scrapped your house by now

[Anonymous No.8892404]

>>8892245
>If you're going to actually build a rocket powerful enough to push the required amount of payload to the moon, build actual LEMs and CSMs and put them on top of it, and then successfully launch 7 of them, there really isn't a whole lot left that would make faking it worthwhile.
How about making it work?

Building a rocket that looks big enough is a different and far easier thing from building a rocket actually capable enough. Putting together a plausible spacecraft is a different and far easier thing from making one that actually works on the first try.

Imagine the humiliation for America if they tried and failed, as the Soviets did.

>Once that's established, there really is no reason to believe there was a hoax
...other than that they did it in the 60s, a mere dozen years after the first object ever launched into orbit, and then nobody's been able to do it again in half a century, including NASA, despite all of the technological advancement since.

>other than there being some other fundamental obstacle to getting there, like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist.
We know solar radiation makes surviving the trip a crapshoot. The doses after a solar flare would be enough to cause acute radiation sickness, never mind cancer.

As for the Van Allen belts, they are certainly an obstacle and to flatly deny that they pose one is not putting yourself on the side of rational argument.

[Anonymous No.8892425]

>>8892245

>like the Van Allen belts or solar radiation, but we know that no such obstacles exist

Space Shuttle crews had to avoid the Van Allen radiation belt in fucking low earth orbits, and moonfags want us to believe astronauts survived days in it.

[Anonymous No.8892435]

>>8892379
>>public failure and loss of crew would be unacceptable
>Are you aware that the 3 man crew of Apollo 1 was killed on the ground in a fire during a test of the capsule?
Not the same as failing on an actual trip to the moon.

Furthermore, this sheds considerable doubt on the competence of NASA to have pulled off half a dozen moon landings without losing a single crew in space. This kind of accident would be quite likely in a hoax program: building a real fake capsule, doing real fake tests on the ground, so even most of the people working on it could believe it was real, but not being competent enough to even get through them without killing some people.

>Are you aware that Challenger exploded
>Columbia
Are you claiming that anyone who doubts the moon landings necessarily also denies that the shuttle flew? Because these are separate issues.

[Anonymous No.8892446]

>>8892379

I know this is /x/ territory, but apparently most people on /sci/ never venture outside of their head-in-sand idealistic muh science litter box, so let me tell you that there is some good and bad news about Challenger: the good news is that the crew survived since they never flew onboard, the bad news is that it shows what a lying and deceitful organisation NASA is.

[Anonymous No.8892499]

There was more to it than showing up Russia.... How else could we prove the Earth is a sphere? Or that space is infinite and you are nothing but a spec... ... Are you convinced by your coddling government-backed single source of information known as NASAH.

[Anonymous No.8892500]

>>8892446
no.

[Anonymous No.8892507]

>>8890046

kek

[Anonymous No.8892525]

>>8892500

no what, faggot?

[Anonymous No.8892528]

>>8888285

I don't know, therefore they must have been a hoax.

[Anonymous No.8892530]

>>8892446
That's weird but then again, all the world's a stage.

[Anonymous No.8892534]

>>8892525

>mfw it checks out

[Anonymous No.8892555]

>>8892404
>nobody's been able to do it

Nobody's done it not for lack of ability to develop and build a large launch vehicle, but because it's extremely expensive unless you have a cheap means of putting things into space.

We did it the first time for two reasons; we were in a pissing contest with the Soviets, and we knew that the soviets wanted to actually colonize the Moon, at least in a limited sense. They wanted to use it as a strategic foothold in space. they ended up not doing it because we got there first and their economy was getting too strained as it was, plus the strategic element evaporated when the option of just launching so many nukes that they'd be impossible to stop became plausible.

We stopped going prematurely (several Apollo missions were scrapped, but the program would've been completed by the late 1970's) because the Soviets dropped out, meaning the threat aspect was gone, and Nixon hated the Apollo program. Nixon wanted his own legacy in space flight to outshine Kennedy's, so he tried to do the Space shuttle as a means of pleasing the public (who didn't like how much money Apollo was eating), as well as framing himself as a savvy business man who could bring space down to the common man rather than remain something lofty only the best of the best could possible hope to be involved with. Unfortunately the Space Shuttle we got was a clusterfuck of conflicting design requirements and accomplished none of those things.

[Anonymous No.8892564]

>>8892425
Space Shuttle couldn't go any higher than low Earth orbit. The Van Allen belts start a few thousand km up, the Shuttle never went anywhere near them, because it didn't have enough deltaV.

Apollo didnt go through the belts by the way, it went around them. They're belt after all, not shells. A sufficiently inclined orbit will have you loop up and over as you increase in altitude, then come back underneath as you decrease in altitude towards periapsis. When the Apollo missions launched they went onto an inclined parking orbit for a short time then boosted onto a highly elliptical Moon-intercept trajectory, passing far outside the Van Allen belts on the way.

As for solar storms, the fact is that the astronauts were protected simply by a pair of firmly crossed fingers, because the spacecraft could not shield from something like that unless it was redesigned to be several times heavier (which was not an option), and predicting a solar storm is pretty much not possible.

[Anonymous No.8892576]

>>8892404
>Building a rocket that looks big enough is a different and far easier thing from building a rocket actually capable enough.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of rocketry, the fuels involved, weight of the materials used, thrust generated by fuel being burned at the rates observed during the launches etc etc, can do the math for themselves, and the Saturn V's capabilities match exactly what they should be. If you don't have the ability to figure that kind of thing out yourself, fair enough, but then you should realise you're not in any position to comment on what the Saturn V could do.
>>8892404
>other than that they did it in the 60s, a mere dozen years after the first object ever launched into orbit, and then nobody's been able to do it again in half a century, including NASA, despite all of the technological advancement since.
One of the more tiresome examples of hoaxers simply not caring to learn anything about the history of spaceflight. We have been more than capable of going back to the moon the whole time, providing somebody decided to build a rocket big enough. We simply have decided not to, because it is absurdly expensive and is mostly pointless as the Moon is a barren rock.
>>8892404
>As for the Van Allen belts, they are certainly an obstacle and to flatly deny that they pose one is not putting yourself on the side of rational argument.
Yeah, there's increased radiation in the Van Allen belts and you probably don't want to hang out in them longer than you have to. But they're in no way an impassable obstacle on the way to the moon. The dosage is very well understood and is not more than getting an x-ray or something similar.

[Anonymous No.8892583]

>>8892435
>Are you claiming that anyone who doubts the moon landings necessarily also denies that the shuttle flew?

No, I'm pointing out that your claim that public outcry due to a moon mission failure would be so bad as to make faking it a better option, is invalidated by the fact that NASA has already had 3 very public and very embarrassing mission failures that resulted in multiple loss of life. What would make the Moon mission somehow different in a significant enough way that would have NASA decide staging the events would be a better option?

The Saturn V, for all its power and complexity, is actually a rather simple vehicle when compared to the Shuttle, something that Shuttle proponents bizarrely tote as something good. The Saturn V and Apollo stack had no large, exposed, and extremely delicate thermal protection system, and no fragile insulating foam to break off and damage said thermal protection system. All of the Saturn V+Apollo engines were either pressure fed or used gas generators, two of the most simple rocket engine cycles we've built. By contrast, the Space Shuttle used the RS-25, one of the most complex and delicate fuel-rich staged combustion engines ever designed, and two 4 segment solid boosters which could not be shut down once fired and which produced violent vibrations. The Space Shuttle had to be carefully optimized to within a razors edge of materials technology in order to fly with enough margin to have any payload at all inside the orbiter, because of the demands of reusability.

Due to these and many other reasons I am more surprised hat we didn't see more Shuttle failures, not that we didn't see more Saturn V failures. That's not to say the Saturn V didn't have its own rocky start; One of the unmanned test flights shook so violently that there were concerns that the astronauts would be seriously injured during launch, and another had two of the second stage engines shut down because of a pump anomaly and a computer malfunction.

[Anonymous No.8892585]

>>8892425
>Space Shuttle crews had to avoid the Van Allen radiation belt in fucking low earth orbits, and moonfags want us to believe astronauts survived days in it.
The Space Shuttle was not even capable of reaching orbits as high as the Van Allen belts. At least make a token effort to educate yourself about things before jumping to wild conclusions.

>>8892446
This is such a great example of the failing of conspiracist thinking. They literally cannot think about anything beyond face value, it's simply "these people look like those people, therefore conspiracy". They never get to the far more important step of considering all the implications of their claim.

Just think about the idea that all these astronauts are actually still alive, using the same names. Seriously, stop and consider all the implications of what that would entail. Is that reasonable thing to happen, considering all we known about human behaviour and how the world works? Jesus Christ, just try using your brain and thinking about something for more than 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.8892586]

>>8892564

If it's as simple as hopping over the belts then why is it giving NASA such a headache?

http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

[Anonymous No.8892587]

>>8892446
You trying to tell me there's no way people can look like other people? Especially if you compare what would be aged people to a younger doppelganger?

Nigger, I...

[Anonymous No.8892593]

>>8892585

>They literally cannot think about anything beyond face value

And NASA cheerleaders cannot think about anything beyond their preconceived notions that everything is as it appears, despite evidence to the contrary

[Anonymous No.8892598]

>>8892525
>earlobes aren't the same

Bitch learn your alleles.
And don't start with the plastic surgery shit, you and I both know that if they're going to attach his earlobes to the sides of his head they're going to give him at least a nose job too.

[Anonymous No.8892611]

>>8892587

If it was an isolated case you could dismiss it as a coincidence, but that so many of the astronauts that allegedly died have doppelgangers their age had their still been alive and with the same name, several times, is just too many coincidences for them to be mere coincidences.

[Anonymous No.8892616]

>>8892611

My favourite "coincidence"

[Anonymous No.8892625]

>>8892586

'Hopping over the belts' requires a highly inclined trajectory, which is fine for going to the Moon but can mess up interplanetary encounters. Going to Mars would require either taking an inclined trajectory over the belts, then performing an expensive course correction to get onto a Mars-transfer orbit, using an inclined trajectory to rendezvous with a spacecraft waiting in high Earth orbit or Lunar orbit which would then depart for Mars, or by saying fuck it, packing enough radiation shielding to make the belts a non-issue, then plow through them in an hour on a direct Mars transfer trajectory. The third option would actually be the cheapest and least expensive, as it would require the least mass (course corrections of a large spacecraft take lots of fuel, assembling things in space is expensive and requires multiple launches and rendezvous). Shielding astronauts from the belts would require their habitation module to have a radiation storm shelter, essentially a double walled closet, with the walls full of water, surrounded by their food/clothes/etc, and located in the center of the habitat, maximizing the amount of matter between themselves and outside. Outfit the shelter to be a sleeping area and the astronauts don't even need to be awake during their entire transit through the belts.

[Anonymous No.8892629]

>>8892555
>the Space Shuttle we got was a clusterfuck of conflicting design requirements and accomplished none of those things.
The Apollo Program was a similar clusterfuck.

What was the problem with the shuttle? Above all else, it was too expensive. They didn't develop *practical* reusability. All they could do was reuse it to say they had reused it. They couldn't increase launch rates, reduce costs, or make spaceflight routine or available to more people.

What was the problem with Apollo? Same deal. Too expensive. They didn't develop *practical* transporation to the moon. All they could do was land men on the moon to say they had landed men on the moon. They couldn't set up a base, they couldn't mine resources, they couldn't use it as a staging area for more ambitious missions.

Space nerds today will talk like Apollo was great and the shuttle was a failure, and "Wow, why can't NASA be like it was in the Apollo era?", but back then, most adults recognized how hollow it was to strain the resources of the richest nation on Earth just to plant a flag on the moon.

It's been the same NASA all along.

[Anonymous No.8892631]

>>8892616
Coincidences exist, wow spooky.

There are more than seven billion people, I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find someone who shares your name and looks enough like you to make others think something fishy was going on if you died in a plane crash or mall shootout.

[Anonymous No.8892642]

>>8892593
>And NASA cheerleaders cannot think about anything beyond their preconceived notions that everything is as it appears
What? I just said the complete opposite

[Anonymous No.8892647]

>>8892629
The difference is that no one thought the Saturn V was going to be cheap, they knew going in that it was just they best they could do at the time and it would get people on the Moon within the decade.

Everyone knew and were told that the Shuttle was going to revolutionize space travel, and all it did was make it more expensive and entrench the idea that space-planes must make sense. It also killed more people than any other launch system, which was nice, and it barely changed for the 30 years it was flying.

Before it was canceled, the Apollo program was looking into diversifying its rocket lineup in order to provide launch services to a broader range of payload masses, as well as redesign hardware to make it faster and cheaper to manufacture. They wanted the Saturn V family to get cheaper and for private industry to get a foothold in space activities, but Nixon canceled everything and essentially told them to make a space truck, and it didn't work.

[Anonymous No.8892653]

>>8892631

You're one daft cunt. I have a bridge to sell you, are you interested?

[Anonymous No.8892655]

>>8892631
Also two of them are literally just the astronaut's brother.

[Anonymous No.8892660]

>>8892593

only glimpsed at your post, I assumed you were harping on about how le conspiracists are so le stupid like most people here like to do. Never mind.

[Anonymous No.8892665]

>>8890793
He's still right though. Faking the Moon landings would have been harder than doing it for real. It sounds crazy, but it's true.

https://www.universetoday.com/99531/why-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-2/

http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof

[Anonymous No.8892675]

>>8892576
>Anyone with a basic knowledge of rocketry, the fuels involved, weight of the materials used, thrust generated by fuel being burned at the rates observed during the launches etc etc, can do the math for themselves
Okay, but how do you observe the rate the fuel's being burned? On the second stage? How do you observe the dry mass of the rocket?

You can watch it lift off, but you need NASA's resources to track it into space and see how it was performing. This was the 1960s. The ability to observe what was happening was very limited, except through what NASA was releasing.

Knowing things like the rocket equation and being able to watch it lift off wouldn't get you far.

>If you don't have the ability to figure that kind of thing out yourself, fair enough, but then you should realise you're not in any position to comment on what the Saturn V could do.
Hah, you ridiculous chimp. You guess that "anyone with a basic knowledge of rocketry" could do it, since you don't have it yourself, you ascribe magical powers to that knowledge, then you try to shame me for presumably not having it, since I don't have the magic powers you believe in.

>simply not caring to learn anything about the history of spaceflight
>We have been more than capable
>We simply have decided not to
I'm fucking rolling here. The US government decided to in 2005. That's "the history of spaceflight" for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

Know how that turned out? They said it was too hard and gave up. Here we are, after half a century of technological progress and practical experience, and what was done in the 1960s is now too hard for the US government.

>not more than getting an x-ray
Stop making shit up.

[Anonymous No.8892681]

>>8892665

This guy gets very technical to a non-initiated audience (classic way to bamboozle the audience into believing what you want like quacks who use scientific terms), I bet you yourself dont understand half the shit in that video. This is stuff for /p/ and not this board.

[Anonymous No.8892692]

>>8892681

He doesn't say anything complicated or difficult to understand, ever consider that maybe you're just a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.8892704]

>>8892692

I don't know anything about photography and probably neither do you faggot, so let's stick to what we are knowledgeable about okay? Anyways the idea that it's easier to land people on the moon with primitive 60s tech rather than just come up with a new camera is laughable.

[Anonymous No.8892730]

>>8892675
>Okay, but how do you observe the rate the fuel's being burned? On the second stage? How do you observe the dry mass of the rocket?
Make estimates based on the dimensions and the materials used, make an estimate of the amount of fuel and then observe how long it takes for the first stage to burn out. Sure, it's not going to be exact but you can get a basic idea of if it makes sense.

I'm not really sure what you are actually suggesting, that the J-2 didn't actually have the thrust and specific impulse NASA told us? Why would I believe that? There's nothing unreasonable about them and they're comparable to other similar engines.
>>8892675
>Know how that turned out? They said it was too hard and gave up. Here we are, after half a century of technological progress and practical experience, and what was done in the 1960s is now too hard for the US government.
That's been going on for a while now, Bush Snr declared a return to the moon in 1989, Clinton canceled it. Bush Jnr tried again with Constellation, Obama cancelled that. There's nothing particularly suspicious about any of this and it has nothing to do with it being "too hard", it's just too expensive and there are powerful lobbying groups in the aerospace industry who would prefer not to do it.

[Anonymous No.8892739]

>>8892665
>Faking the Moon landings would have been harder than doing it for real. It sounds crazy, but it's true.
It sounds crazy, but it is crazy.

You know what else didn't exist outside of NASA, and had to be developed especially for the Apollo Program? About a thousand things, which would all seem grossly implausible if NASA didn't share how they did them.

Take Saturn V, for instance. A rocket that can throw nearly 50 tonnes to TLI. Nobody else had that in the 1960s. In fact, nobody else has ever had that. Nobody else has ever had half that.

How about the Apollo Guidance Computer? Computers based on integrated circuits did not exist. Nobody had a 70 lb., 2 MHz, briefcase-size portable computer with 4k RAM and 74k ROM. NASA built the first one, just for Apollo.

You keep looking in, and you find more and more things that nobody else had.

Look at all the crazy custom video shit NASA had for its control room:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ

They absolutely could have done the recording and playback with a custom hardware setup, using a bank of IBM tape drives, as many in parallel as they needed. There's no reason they'd have to use discs. Discs are for rapid seeking, for reading and writing a little here, then a little there. Tapes had much higher capacities, and there was no need to jump around back and forth: they recorded in one continuous write, then they played back in one continuous read.

It's a garbage argument.

[Anonymous No.8892760]

>>8892739
The whole argument about slowing down the footage is moot anyway, as you can just speed it back up to the supposed "real" speed and clearly see that the movement is not natural.

[Anonymous No.8892778]

>>8892704
>I don't know anything about photography
Probably correct

>let's stick to what we are knowledgeable about
Okay, it was impossible to fake the Moon landings in 1969 and onward because data storage and playback technology at the time would have made this completely infeasible and improvements to such technology of the scale required could not be achieved in the time frame they had. It was in fact technologically easier to actually go to the Moon, because even inefficient rockets can do big things if the rocket itself is big enough to overcome those inefficiencies. Sea dragon is a good example of a rocket that goes for size rather than efficiency, to the extreme.

>primitive 60s tech
The Saturn V rocket used engines just a few percent less efficient than the best engines we have today. The only real primitive things about the Saturn V were the manufacturing techniques, which required skilled manual labor which today is done with precise robotics.

[Anonymous No.8892779]

>>8892730
>There's nothing particularly suspicious about any of this and it has nothing to do with it being "too hard", it's just too expensive
That's not how it played out with Constellation. It wasn't just too expensive, the schedule also kept getting pushed back. The status as of cancellation in 2010 was that they couldn't have Ares V flying before the mid-2020s.

Remember, Saturn V's basic design was settled in 1962 and it flew in 1967. That's with 1960s tech and very little experience designing rockets.

>there are powerful lobbying groups in the aerospace industry who would prefer not to do it.
So now you're resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories. Like the aerospace industry doesn't want to get paid to fly people to the moon.

[Sage in options field No.8892780]

>>8888888

[Anonymous No.8892787]

>>8892778

>it was impossible to fake the Moon landings in 1969 and onward because data storage and playback technology at the time would have made this completely infeasible

This makes no sense whatsoever, so filming the real thing on the moon was technologically feasible but filming astronauts hopping around on a Hollywood sound stage was technologically unfeasible? Again, this "faking it is easier" argument is completely ridiculous, I don't know how people can forward such a claim with a straight face.

[Anonymous No.8892792]

>>8892778
>it was impossible to fake the Moon landings in 1969 and onward because data storage and playback technology at the time would have made this completely infeasible
See: >>8892739
I don't know why people buy this argument so easily. Must be confirmation bias.

>>primitive 60s tech
>The Saturn V rocket used engines just a few percent less efficient than the best engines we have today. The only real primitive things about the Saturn V were the manufacturing techniques
Man, that ain't the problem. Building a big enough rocket is a fairly small part of the challenge.

[Anonymous No.8892818]

>>8892787
> so filming the real thing on the moon was technologically feasible but filming astronauts hopping around on a Hollywood sound stage was technologically unfeasible?
The landings weren’t filmed on the Moon.
They were broadcast live back to Earth.

[Anonymous No.8892826]

>>8891864
haha you are obviously a paid NASA shill ;)

[Anonymous No.8892832]

>>8892779
>So now you're resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories. Like the aerospace industry doesn't want to get paid to fly people to the moon.
It's common knowledge that big aerospace companies have serious affects on space policy. For example it's been made law that SLS must use large SRBs because Orbital ATK wants to sell them, and companies like Boeing and Lockheed are much more interested in continuing to do what's profitable for them, ie sending up LEO and GEO satellites and resupplying ISS.

There is no profit in going to the moon because there's nothing there.

[Anonymous No.8892838]

>>8892818

Hold on a second, so people have been making hour long movies for decades but somehow this is is an issue with Apollo? Do you even know how much reel people had to go through in the past to make the final cut?

[Anonymous No.8892848]

>>8892838
>Hold on a second, so people have been making hour long movies for decades but somehow this is is an issue with Apollo?
The hour long movies people made were FILMS. The Apollo landings weren't filmed, they were broadcast video.
The 1960's may have had great film editing technology, but they had very little ability to manipulate video footage. Definitely not enough to fake multi-hour low-gravity excursions.

[Anonymous No.8892852]

>>8892200

Yes I know, a strawman is argument is the one you gave. The Russian space program wouldn't even start if you were right.

[Anonymous No.8892886]

>>8892832
>companies like Boeing and Lockheed are much more interested in continuing to do what's profitable for them, ie sending up LEO and GEO satellites and resupplying ISS.
>There is no profit in going to the moon because there's nothing there.
There was nothing where ISS was either.

If it's expensive to go to the moon, then there's profit for contractors in going to the moon.

>>8892848
>they had very little ability to manipulate video footage. Definitely not enough to fake multi-hour low-gravity excursions.
Again, see: >>8892739

Developing the necessary video recording/playback equipment would have been trivial compared to the rest of the Apollo Program. They didn't need to have some affordable off the shelf thing, they could throw resources at it and build lots of custom hardware. It only needed to be real-time for recording and playback. And they were long, continuous shots, so there wasn't a need for a lot of editing.

[Anonymous No.8892913]

>>8892886
>Developing the necessary video recording/playback equipment would have been trivial compared to the rest of the Apollo Program.
Source?

>they could throw resources at it and build lots of custom hardware
That's what they did, except they built a functioning spacecraft and launch vehicle and actually did the moon missions rather than attempt to fake it.

>It only needed to be real-time for recording and playback.
Not if it's supposed to look like low gravity. Also it would have had to have been filmed in a massive vacuum chamber because of the way the dust behaves when it gets kicked up; no suspended particles settling out or blowing around at all.

>And they were long, continuous shots
Which are much harder to fake, because you have to bank on the facade not slipping even for a moment because millions of people will instantly see it and recognize the fakery.

[Anonymous No.8892916]

>>8892886
>There was nothing where ISS was either.
>If it's expensive to go to the moon, then there's profit for contractors in going to the moon.
I'm sure aerospace companies would love to provide their services to go and build a moon base, but they know that's just not reasonable on NASA's budget. ISS is there because of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and decades of planning and building up support. They were able to do that because the public considered it of scientific value.

There just doesn't seem to be any way that a moon base provides so much more benefit than an orbital station that it would justify the hundreds of billions of dollars it would require to make it. Taxpayers would never allow it.

You need to realise that the Apollo program was a freak event. It was a country deciding to just write a blank check and throw a literal army of engineers and scientists at a problem to plant a flag on a rock, just to show they could. Humanity won't truly venture back out into space again until there's a profit for someone to do it.

[Anonymous No.8892919]

>>8892848

> The Apollo landings weren't filmed, they were broadcast video.

That's what we're told. The whole point is that they could be filmed on a sound stage and later broadcast on TV like it was any other movie on television. I don't see what the fuss about video technology and Apollo is all about, since it could have easily been filmed like countless movies before.

[Anonymous No.8892934]

>>8892919
>That's what we're told.
The broadcast would have had film artefacts on it if was filmed. It didn't.

>The whole point is that they could be filmed on a sound stage and later broadcast on TV like it was any other movie on television.
They whole point is that they couldn’t, because that would look different to what they actually showed.

>I don't see what the fuss about video technology and Apollo is all about, since it could have easily been filmed like countless movies before.
Except.
It.
Wasn't.
Filmed.

[Anonymous No.8893028]

OP is a moron, pic related.

>>8892446
>>8892525
>>8892611
>>8892616
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp
faget

[Anonymous No.8893141]

When they kick up dust with their boots, how did they fake the dust falling in a parabolic path rather than getting kicked up in the air?

[Anonymous No.8893143]

>>8889573
The space shuttle was developed decades after the Apollo missions, moron.

[Anonymous No.8893147]

>>8892446
>the crew survived

So, where are they?

[Anonymous No.8893230]

>>8893141

Anything that gets kicked up anywhere where there is gravity will have a parabolic path you triple nogger. You probably dont even know what parabolic means and are just parroting your popsci personalities.

[Anonymous No.8893233]

>>8892934

It could have been "broadcast" live from a Hollywood sound stage as if it were the moon then copied onto film to eliminate artefact. Your argument proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.8893318]

>>8893230
>Anything that gets kicked up anywhere where there is gravity will have a parabolic path
Only in a vacuum. Light dust will follow a very different path in air.

>>8893233
>It could have been "broadcast" live from a Hollywood sound stage as if it were the moon then copied onto film to eliminate artefact.
The artefacts are from the film itself. It doesn't matter how many stages of recording and re-broadcasting occurred before it was filmed, if they had used film anywhere in process before people watched it there would have been noticeable artefacts. There weren't.

[Anonymous No.8893397]

>>8893318

It could very well have been broadcast live from a sound stage then. I rewatched the Apollo 11 moonwalk and Neil Armstrong seemed extremely nervous and kept stumbling on his words and his delivery was forced like he was going through rehearsed lines, as you would expect from someone pulling a fast one on the world on live TV. Besides clarify what you mean by artefact, the quality was notoriously bad and from what I've heard NASA forced tv stations to film the landing from a screen and were not given a direct feed.

[Anonymous No.8893466]

>>8889901
>>8888888
what was it

[Anonymous No.8893480]

>>8893397
>It could very well have been broadcast live from a sound stage then.
How? Faking low-gravity requires the footage to be slowed down, which obviously isn't possible to do live.

>I rewatched the Apollo 11 moonwalk and Neil Armstrong seemed extremely nervous and kept stumbling on his words and his delivery was forced like he was going through rehearsed lines
He WAS going through rehearsed lines. And he likely WAS nervous as fuck.
Why would you expect otherwise?

>Besides clarify what you mean by artefact
The spots, flickers, lines, and debris you see on older films. There's a whole category of degradation that's characteristic of film-based footage, and not seen elsewhere.

>from what I've heard NASA forced tv stations to film the landing from a screen and were not given a direct feed.
I've never heard that before. Do you have a source?

[Anonymous No.8893491]

>>8892913
>>Developing the necessary video recording/playback equipment would have been trivial compared to the rest of the Apollo Program.
>Source?
I described how they'd do it, you chimp. "Source?" isn't an appropriate response to every presented argument.

The guy who made the "they didn't have the tech to fake it" argument just said there was no off-the-shelf tech for it, and handwaved away the possibility of custom hardware with, "But don't you guys think Apollo-era NASA was incompetent with electronics, a hur hur hur?" He knows full well that it could have been done, but takes the attitude that he's arguing with idiots and therefore doesn't need a solid argument.

>>It only needed to be real-time for recording and playback.
>Not if it's supposed to look like low gravity.
Stop being a monkey. I obviously meant those are the only times when they needed to keep up with real-time demands, such as camera input and replaying for broadcast, not that they didn't need to record at higher frame-rates than usual (which is still a real-time problem).

>Which are much harder to fake, because you have to bank on the facade not slipping even for a moment because millions of people will instantly see it and recognize the fakery.
There are many things which look odd and implausible, which have been pointed out as flaws and slips, but most people dismiss them or rationalize them away, and easily accept whatever excuses they are given, even if they don't understand them. No single person has all of the necessary expertise to validate all the evidence themselves, so it's a split between trusting and untrusting people.

>>8892916
>You need to realise that the Apollo program was a freak event.
The freak event was not putting a man on the moon, but doing it so uneconomically. What SpaceX is working on could have been done in the 50s and 60s, just somewhat less efficiently.

[Anonymous No.8893494]

>>8888848

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHH

Literally tears of laughing.

But yes, that's actually the level of /sci/. The best proof everyone can give about the subject is the rock the Russian musseum has from the Moon.

Literally EVERY SCIENTIST could fake that.

[Anonymous No.8893632]

>>8893480
>The spots, flickers, lines, and debris you see on older films. There's a whole category of degradation that's characteristic of film-based footage, and not seen elsewhere.
First of all, this is not an inevitable consequence of using film, rather it's a consequence of cost sensitivity, allowing the flaws to occur because it's expensive to avoid them.

Secondly, they wouldn't have been showing people the film itself. They were only broadcasting noisy standard-definition TV signals, about 440X480 (speaking of the later, higher-quality broadcasts, the initial slow-scan signals were even more crude). They only had to clean things up enough to look good at this low resolution and signal quality.

For instance, you can split the image twice, record on four films, duplicate the best or discard the worst, and then during playback, run it through some electronics which let the three or five sources "vote" on what the correct value should be for each pixel.

And in fact, this whole, "The technology didn't exist." argument is insane. NASA recorded the broadcasts on analog magnetic tape:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Video tape was a mature technology by the mid-50s.

Does anyone seriously want to argue that, with the rapid pace of improvement in technologies, by 1969 an important government project couldn't have developed the ability to speed up the frame rate of the existing video recording technology by a small factor?

[Anonymous No.8893644]

>>8890346
>smartest people
>meme scientists and science educators

[Anonymous No.8893649]

>>8890793
>brainlets
If we're such brainlets, please tell us your credentials so we can all sit in amazement about how much of a genius you are

[Anonymous No.8893752]

>>8893649
>credentials = intelligence
Brainlet for life confirmed.

[Anonymous No.8894681]

>>8893632
I'm pretty sure anybody would admit that it's not a total impossibility that it was faked. You can always postulate some secret ahead-of-its-time filmmaking technology that the government had, or legions of editors painstakingly removing every trace of film artifacts and fakery, or whatever.

The problem is that at that point you're no longer looking at the question objectively and simply weighing the balance of evidence. You've just decided that it was fake and are now looking for any way you can to make that be the case.

It makes far more sense to just conclude they actually did it, as there is no reason they couldn't have done it, and no reason to think they didn't do it.

[Anonymous No.8895140]

>>8888292
They did try, though.They flew orbital missions with an unmanned lunar lander, running it through maneuvers that would be used in a landing, just like the US did.

Their N-1 rocket, designed by S. Korolev to get an Apollo-style LOR mission to the moon, was hampered by needing 30 engines in the 1st stage (they did not have the ability to make huge engines such as the Saturn V used), creating all sorts of issues with interactions between engines and way too many opportunities for failure -- all this compounded by their lacking the ability to test-fire the engines as a unit. (They lacked a big enough test stand, and the Soviet government would not pay for having one built fast enough to be useful. This meant that solving interaction problems was all but impossible.) On top of that, budget and time restraints (dealing with 30 engines) meant they could not run in all the engines before use -- they had to randomly test a sample of them and hope for the best.

So every N-1 launch blew up, ad it was never man-rated.

Korolev maybe could have found a way to make it work, but he died before the first N-1 launch.

An effort was made to adapt the new Soyuz vehicle for a one-man circumnavigation mission, to beat Apollo to that goal and then claim that was what counted, landing was not needed. But they had issues with a couple of unmanned test mission, with the capsule failing to reach the moon or not returning to Earth safely. Then Apollo 8 beat them to that, so the plan was abandoned.

In the end, they launched an unmanned probe simultaneous with the Apollo 11 mission, designed to bring home a soil sample while 11 was still on the moon, and claim that THAT was the first, manned missions were not necessary. That Luna probe crashed while attempting a landing.

So the Soviets mothballed their lunar hardware and pretended they were never in the race, and concentrated on LEO space stations and such, where they had much more success.

[Anonymous No.8895152]

>>8892425
>Space Shuttle crews had to avoid the Van Allen radiation belt in fucking low earth orbits, and moonfags want us to believe astronauts survived days in it.

Show me a source that has NASA saying the Apollo astronauts spent days in the Van Allen belts, and I will personally come over to your house and suck the dick of your dog.

[Anonymous No.8895198]

>>8888029
>I don't understand it so they must all be lying
classic

[Anonymous No.8895239]

>>8888826
>ow do you prove something like the moon landings didn't happen?
None of the transmissions between Earth and the spacecraft were encrypted. Any idiot with a HAM radio could listen in. Any group of people with access to 4 HAM radios spread out over a wide area could even triangulate where the vehicle was.

So basically, when you say the Apollo landings never happened, that the Soviets were so stupid that they never thought of this over the entire 4 years we were flying missions to the Moon. It would be trivial for them to do. Don't give me that tired "food aid" bullshit either, the Soviets weren't the only ones who would've loved to make the US look bad. China could've done it too. Hell, anti-government Americans could've done it.

[Anonymous No.8895341]

>>8895239
They were bouncing radio waves off the moon in the 40s.

Even if that wasn't an option, landing a transmitter on the moon would have been far easier than pulling off six manned landings without losing a single crew. (and no, the "Apollo 1" fire on the ground doesn't count, that just demonstrates a level of incompetence inconsistent with their later claimed performance)

[Anonymous No.8895482]

>>8895341
First of all, the radio waves they were bouncing off the Moon were radar; they contained no data.

Second of all, any transmission strong enough to make the round trip and still be detectable would be easily detected on Earth too. It'd be pretty apparent they were doing that.
>Hey Ivan, check out this signal coming from the Moon
>Vlad, its the same as this signal coming from Houston, Americans are trying to trick us

[Anonymous No.8895486]

>>8890325
You have a moonrock?

[Anonymous No.8895505]

>>8892446
Sounds nuts but when you watch the video its obvious these people are not watching an explosion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7dxmBLg48

Two of the people watching see their daughter get exploded but they aren't even distressed. The dad even smiles.

[Anonymous No.8895514]

>>8895505
He's grimacing, not smiling. The mother's obviously distressed too.

[Anonymous No.8895519]

>be a new student for ESA
>come to /sci/
>see this specific thread
>not disappointed at all

keep posting OP

[Anonymous No.8895533]

>If you believe the moon landings were legit you are the equivalent of a creationist

alright, but I've found that god is harder to spot with a telescope than the american flag on the moon

[Anonymous No.8895539]

>>8895533
If that were possible nobody would doubt the moon landings

[Anonymous No.8895549]

>>8895539
you would think, but unfortunately moon landing conspiracy fags are essentially a slightly lesser form of flat earth fags

[Anonymous No.8895554]

>>8888848
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.8895570]

>>8892616
Bro are you fucking kidding me they don't even look alike

[Anonymous No.8895578]

>>8888029
>thinks he isn't just publicly proving he is retarded

[Anonymous No.8895615]

>>8888029
Fool. I was there, on the Moon when Apollo XV landed, not two miles from my house.

[Anonymous No.8895636]

>>8895505
Yes, the Challenger explosion which happened above a densely populated coastline and was probably witnessed live by tens of thousands of people didn't actually happen. That sounds like a reasonable thing to believe.

Seriously, how mentally impaired do you have to be to think about something this shallowly?

[Anonymous No.8895651]

>>8895636
>it was all staged just so nobody would find out the master conspiracy lmao how can you be such a brainlet
honestly flat earthers and lunar landing deniers should be gassed

[Anonymous No.8895742]

>>8895651

>lunar lander deniers

How can you deny something that never happened? It's like saying most brainlets from this board are God deniers.

[Dumbass No.8895768]

If they don't believe in the moon landing why do they believe in the Van Allen Radiation belt?

[Anonymous No.8895802]

>>8892446
left to right, top to bottom

>hairline is lower on older man, earlobes are different, shape of forehead

>bridge of nose and brows, cheekbones

>I got nuthin'.

>tip of nose, teeth, earlobes

>this one is pretty good too

>all black people look alike hurr
>lips, ears, teeth, smile, eyebrow (on our left)

[Anonymous No.8895837]

>>8890842
you just repeated anons point and called it stupid. retard

[Anonymous No.8895842]

>>8892094
lol moron

[Anonymous No.8895847]

>>8895549
Not really. There's plenty of evidence and logic that shows the Earth is round.

This is not the case with the moon landing. I want to believe but I need proof.

[Anonymous No.8895849]

>>8892585
>Seriously, stop and consider all the implications of what that would entail
done. whats your point?

[Anonymous No.8895852]

>>8895505
>My interpretation is correct.

[Anonymous No.8895855]

>>8889445
This isn't an infinite loop, retard. Show science, get science.

[Anonymous No.8895859]

>>8895578
>thinks what he is doing isn't one of the main reasons why literally no one believes in the moon landings anymore

[Anonymous No.8895862]

>>8892934
>The broadcast would have had film artefacts on it if was filmed. It didn't.
now thats just being obtuse on purpose

[Anonymous No.8895869]

>>8893491
so, no source? OK

[Anonymous No.8895870]

>>8895802

>what is aging

>>8895855

Then prove, with science, that the moon landings happened.... oh wait you cant.

[Anonymous No.8895871]

>>8895486
They have a sample at my university.

[Anonymous No.8895875]

>>8895870
There's plenty of thirdparty evidence. You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.8895879]

>>8895847
Reflectors on the moon

[Anonymous No.8895888]

>>8895875

Like that? You think JAXA would ever rat on NASA? Or the ESA? They're all in bed with each other for political reasons. Just like the CIA, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, MI6, etc. are one clique. Don't be naive now.

[Anonymous No.8895891]

>>8888029
What kind of a retarded thread is this? Are we being raided?

[Anonymous No.8895893]

>>8895879

Both the Americans and the Soviets bounced off laser beams off the surface of the moon in the early 60s, so this proves nothing, there are no reflectors except those in your mind. Try again.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1969/08/02/page/8/article/laser-beam-is-bounced-off-moon-device

[Anonymous No.8895894]

>>8895891

I like how brainlets always claim to 'open minded' and 'critical thinkers' but want to shut down debate on anything they don't like.

[Anonymous No.8895896]

I have never been to the pyramids, have you?

Yet we know they are there, because learned men have told us so.

It is not unlike traveling down a river, you see, you travel down the river round the bend and look back. You cannot see around the bend, can you? But that does not mean it is not there, does it?

But certain clubs would like us to think that a truth uncovered should stay hidden.

There's nothing I can do for you if your mind is made up. You seem to know the answers to your questions, why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.8895900]

>>8895896

>just have faith, bro!!! there's no proof but you just gotta belieeeeeeve it, duuuude

Like I said, creationism-tier.

[Anonymous No.8895901]

>>8895896
>because learned men have told us so
>being this much of a sheep
start thinking for yourself

[Anonymous No.8895902]

>>8895893
Your article literally says that the laser was bounced off by a device brought by Apollo 11 on the moon.
Learn to read nigger

[Anonymous No.8895908]

>>8895902

I was in a haste to find a link so I wasnt paying attention, here's the real one:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=0hWpWSF7e7YC

page 673, second paragraph. You can also find info on how Soviets did the same around the same time.

[Anonymous No.8895913]

>>8892616
>COWS in TREES

[Anonymous No.8895916]

>>8895908
Learn to read nigger

[Anonymous No.8895917]

>>8895913

I have to say, the CIA does have a sense of humour.

[Anonymous No.8895918]

>>8895916

>gets stumped, resorts to insults

k.

[Anonymous No.8895923]

>>8895918
>posts article that stump himself
>gets advice to improve his ability to read, because he is unaware of said self ownage
>comically fails again at basic reading comprehension and misinterprets this advice as a mere insult
top fucking kek. we are done here

[Anonymous No.8895928]

>>8895917
Jesus Christ
The conspiracy is real!

[Anonymous No.8896094]

>>8895923

Again, I made a mistake and corrected myself, you just got rekt and it shows from your behaviour.

[Anonymous No.8896116]

>>8896094
You still dont get? Actually try to read both of the links you provided and see how you only rekt your own argument.
You seem to have problems with reading though, as you have shown in every single post of yours. But I still have hope and provide an additional read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

[Anonymous No.8896127]

No.>>8888293
...so we can dismiss your nonscientific garbage.

[Anonymous No.8896149]

>>8896127

I proved a laser can be bounced off the lunar soil without your stupid moon mirror.

[Anonymous No.8896155]

>>8896116

> And the finest day in the long and exciting history of lasers bouncing off things occurred in 1962 when a team of earnest young men in slacks from MIT managed to bounce a laser off the moon.

http://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/5-09/mit-successfully-bounce-laser-moon

Here is a brainlet-friendly source. Happy now?

[Anonymous No.8896164]

>>8896149
you are a huge fucking retard for not getting how the mirror works as opposed to lidar. mcfucking kys

[Anonymous No.8896166]

>>8896155
>Here is a brainlet-friendly source
THEN READ IT YOU DAFT CUNT
How are you still not getting this? You must be baiting, nigger.

[Anonymous No.8896168]

>>8896155
>www.history.co.uk

[Anonymous No.8896172]

>>8896166

Look, I don't know if you are being genuinely retarded or just too much of a sore loser to admit defeat. It's written black on white that scientists bounced a laser of the lunar surface without any fancy props. Your argument got destroyed, face it already.

[Anonymous No.8896185]

>>8896172
You must be completely scientifically illiterate if you think that this experiments somehow disproves the existence of man-made retroflectors on the moon. You can keep screeching "hurr I btfo you" (which doesnt convince anybody, probably not even yourself), or you can follow my initial advice and actually try reading your own articles to learn something. For example how those experiments are very different. A dark bumpy sand doesnt reflect light like a mirror that was designed to bounce it back to its origin for starters.

[Anonymous No.8896193]

>>8895888
>It's all a big secret kept by multiple organizations who're all working together to suppress the truth but I'm too smart for them

[Anonymous No.8896199]

>>8896185

It doesn't disprove the disprove the existence of retroflectors. It disprove the assertion that a return laser signal proves the moon landings happened. Stop putting words into my mouth brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8896220]

>>8896172
>NASA: We have a large budget to organize this country's finest talent and develop new technologies, all in the name of a mission that everyone knows is possible. Let's just fake it instead and noone will ever know. Something as huge as this won't be of interest to subsequent generations so let's not care about shadows and stars and just rush out the post production work on our fake footage.

[Anonymous No.8896226]

>>8888060
Van Allen himself said he didn't feel a thing when he went to orbit.

[Anonymous No.8896244]

>>8896172
Nobody ever doubted that the moon reflects light. Really have to agree with anon, you need to learn to read nigger

[Anonymous No.8896252]

>>8896199
>It disprove the assertion that a return laser signal proves the moon landings happened
It doesnt you fucking retard. How does this not get through your thick skull. Here is it again:
>those experiments are very different. A dark bumpy sand doesnt reflect light like a mirror that was designed to bounce it back to its origin for starters.
It has proven beyond doubt that there is retroflector on the moon. You yourself has linked to an article about this. A more clever retard would at least claim that they just used a probe to land the mirror on the moon. But no, you go full retarded and play the completely obtuse mongo.

[Anonymous No.8896297]

>>8888888
someone took a screenshot?
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

[Anonymous No.8896323]

Space is more radioactive than nuclear reactor. People can't survive in chernobil and fukusima's irradiated zones so there's no reason why they'll be able to magically survive in space. There is no treatment to radiation poisoning. no drugs to slow it down, no nothing. Therefor, unless you think NASA has some special hidden stash of super drugs for that job, it's impossible to send humans in space and bring them back alive.

[Anonymous No.8896331]

>>8896323
>Space is more radioactive than nuclear reactor
thats not right. and it is not even wrong. you base your conclusion on an assumprtions that is vague gibberish. invalid, next

[Anonymous No.8896363]

>>8896323
>Space is radioactive

wat

[Anonymous No.8896384]

>>8893028
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp
You find this shit convincing?

>These two Scobees are similar in appearance, but there are distinct differences that can’t be accounted for by the passage of years (such as the difference in ear shapes). Moreover, at the time that Francis Richard Scobee, the former Air Force pilot, was training with NASA as an astronaut and serving as an instructor pilot for the shuttle’s 747 carrier aircraft, Richard Scobee, the current CEO of Cows in Trees, was serving as CEO and President of The Marketing Edge, Inc. in Chicago. The same man couldn’t have been holding down two such disparate jobs, in two widely separated geographic locations, at the same time.

Minor cosmetic surgery and fake records + false witnesses.

>Yes, the late Ronald McNair looked a lot like his brother, Carl, as many siblings do (but they’re still easy to tell apart, as Carl has an obvious gap in his front teeth that Ronald didn’t). And this proves what, exactly? It might be a curiosity if there were no record of the existence of “Carl McNair” until after the Challenger explosion, but that isn’t the case.

They prepared for the hoax ahead of time. Everyone knows you can always trust "records" after a government conspiracy!

>Nobody familiar with either person would confuse these two Judith Resniks with each other, as they have very different facial structures.

No they don't.

Snopes is garbage. They used to be pretty decent at doing a bit of legwork and not saying more than they found out, but at some point they let their reputation go to their heads and started taking strong positions on little or no evidence. Now they even take sides in political issues, pushing their opinions as facts.

[Anonymous No.8896421]

>>8892625
>Shielding astronauts from the belts would require their habitation module to have a radiation storm shelter
They need one anyway. Solar flares send out bursts of protons that hit everything in deep space a few times per year, with sufficient intensity to cause acute radiation sickness in something as thinly-shielded as the Apollo capsule.

In the Apollo missions, they just crossed their fingers and hoped there wouldn't be one during their week in space.

The obvious way to do it is to make a fort out of your supplies and waste, and huddle in it during intense radiation events. You need a bunch of food, water, CO2-scrubbing/O2-replacing supplies, etc. anyway and that's all suitable for shielding. No need for extra mass specifically for a shelter.

[Anonymous No.8896582]

>>8896384

These people would go at great lengths to delude themselves in order to avoid facing the truth.

[Anonymous No.8896589]

>>8896252

>those experiments are very different. A dark bumpy sand doesnt reflect light like a mirror that was designed to bounce it back to its origin for starters.

That's just you talking out of your ass and grasping at straws because you got BTFO'd. Source for your claim?

[Anonymous No.8896654]

>>8892585

Please give me a rational explanation as to how so many of the Challenger crew have doppelgangers looking exactly like them, with almost identical names, and most in teaching positions of their respective fields. You brainlets would sooner deny that the sun will rise tomorrow than admit that you've been lied too.

[Anonymous No.8896796]

>>8895871
Have you even seen it, like with a microscope and shit

I understand why people believe in tge moon landings but don't pretend like we have first hand knowlegde of it

[Anonymous No.8896806]

>>8895896
My grandma has seen the pyramids. I could pull up thousands of videos of them, even a live stream.

Not the case with the moon. We don't even have real pictures of the Earth like one would expect given our satellite technology. But im supposed to buy that we went to the moon several times over 50 years ago. Whatever.

[Anonymous No.8896816]

>>8896252
>A dark bumpy sand doesnt reflect light like a mirror
Then how did they bounce lasers off the moon prior to the apollo missions?

[Anonymous No.8897062]

>>8889573
You can find the Apollo 11 landing site on Google Earth if you zoom out enough and swap to the Moon

[Anonymous No.8897071]

Who would win?
The entire hivemind of all potential conspiracy believers on the entire planet working for 48 years after it happened to try and convince people that the moon landing was fake.

Vs.

A group of teenagers from rural England

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Kettering_Grammar_School

[Anonymous No.8897078]

>>8897071
cheeky cunts

[Anonymous No.8897106]

>>8897071
>According to the group, in December 1972 a member "picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon".

Oh ok i guess humans walked on the moon since this grammar school said that

How is that proof

[Anonymous No.8897107]

>>8897078
It's part of the Grammar school syllabus

In this pic some blokes in England pointed their telescopes at the sky in 1968 at the place where NASA claimed Apollo 8 was going to dump some fuel and shockingly that's what they saw

[Anonymous No.8897112]

>>8888285

You're to going to beleive this. They worked almost exactly the same way that modern computers work.

[Anonymous No.8897116]

>>8895917
Where's the similarity? It's some clouds, clouds look like each other, wow so spooky.

[Anonymous No.8897119]

>>8896220
This.

[Anonymous No.8897124]

>>8896323
>People can't survive in chernobil and fukusima's irradiated zones

Not true, people aren't allowed to live there because over decades of exposure they may develop radiation related illnesses like cancer. They would also be spreading radioactive material like dust around with their daily activities. On the short term this stuff is nearly harmless, you need to look at very long duration exposure for most radiation to start being harmful.

[Anonymous No.8897125]

>>8897107
Fun fact, NASA claimed to have brought back 382 kilograms of Moon rocks back from the Moon, and there has never, not even once, been a peer reviewed paper that concluded that a sample from those rocks didn't come from the Moon. The Soviet's managed to to bring back 325g of Moon rock with their 3 unmanned landers. To bring back 382kgs of Moon rock would only require 392 unmanned totally secret and untrackable by third party missions.

>>8897106
It's meant as evidence not proof, that is how arguments in real life are different from pure logic puzzles.
>Oh ok i guess humans didn't walk on the moon since this OP on /sci/ said that
>How is that proof

[Anonymous No.8897126]

>>8896421
Exactly, which is why I said it's the best option.

[Anonymous No.8897129]

>>8896654
Some of the doppelgangers are literally the sibling of the astronaut that died. Siblings look similar to one another.

[Anonymous No.8897136]

>>8897112
>They worked almost exactly the same way that modern computers work.
Did you check out the other responses? Because that's not true at all.

Those aren't "computers", they're TVs that can be switched to a variety of feeds, generated with all sorts of weird custom hardware. Computers were generally still fridge-size to room-size, and the most common interface was still a hard-copy teletype (basically, an electric typewriter, except the computer could see what you were typing, and type stuff back to you).

Seriously, this thing is worth watching, to appreciate what a crazy set-up they had:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_L68oHjgdQ

[Anonymous No.8897138]

>>8897107

>a fuzzy and grainy picture showing absolutely nothing

Wtf I believe in Apollo now!

[Anonymous No.8897139]

>>8896806
>Not the case with the moon
LOOK OUTSIDE WHEN THE MOON IS UP YOU NIGGER

>We don't even have real pictures of the Earth like one would expect given our satellite technology
Here's a picture taken from ~1 million km away by the DISCOVR spacecraft. The entire Earth was captured in frame due to the distance, the spacecraft took four images (one each in red, green, and blue, and one black and white for detail) which were overlaid into one full color image. Why didn't it just take one full color image like yo may expect? Color sensitive photoreceptors in cameras get chewed up by cosmic rays and other high energy radiation in deep space. A short mission like Apollo can carry cameras that can see in color but for a satellite meant to park in one spot in deep space for years at a time they aren't an option. The camera can take full color photos by taking a black and white image, then a series of images with all color wavelengths except one blocked out, therefore only picking up either blue or green or red light. That color information gets applied to the black and white photo and viola, full color image as real as any digital camera would take.

[Anonymous No.8897142]

>>8890125
>I actually believe it's possible that the manned landings were faked
it's literally impossible for them to have been faked. we didn't have the technology to the produce the fake footage

[Anonymous No.8897148]

>>8897125

Unless those 'moon rocks' actually came from Antarctica, where NASA led an expeditidition with Von Braun because reasons. Let's not forget the 'moon rocks' that turned out to be petrified wood.

[Anonymous No.8897155]

>>8897139
I never said the moon doesn't exist. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

>Why didn't it just take one full color image like yo may expect? Color sensitive photoreceptors in cameras get chewed up by cosmic rays and other high energy radiation in deep space

So we can literally walk on the moon but taking a regular picture in space is not possible. This is just a round about way of using computer generated images. You may trust them, but I want to see the original photos.

[Anonymous No.8897172]

>>8897148
Fun fact, the only reason we know those rocks came from the Moon is because we compared them with the rocks we got from the Moon.

The first Lunar meteorite was recognised in 1982, 13 years after the first Apollo samples. The total mass of confirmed Lunar Meteorites ever found is 46 kilograms, drastically short of the sample recovered by the Apollo astronauts.

All the Moon landings were in geologically similar landing sites, whereas Lunar meteorites show a random sample of all different types of Moon geology, meaning only a small sample of the entire population of Moon rocks ever recovered could be used as Apollo hoax rocks.

Wee woo wee woo evidence alert
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/GL010i009p00775/abstract;jsessionid=F1BFF38DB68F85546295B4620A435B02.f03t02

[Anonymous No.8897176]

>>8897107

Source on that image, would like more info

>>8897125

>Oh ok i guess humans didn't walk on the moon since this OP on /sci/ said that

I didn't say that. I just need undeniable proof to believe extraordinary claims.

[Anonymous No.8897196]

>>8897155
I said we can take color pictures from the Moon and in space. What we can't do is design a full color camera that can survive years of being in space without heavy shielding. The fact that it takes months or years is important, no Apollo mission lasted long enough for the radiation to harm the cameras. However, if we stuck those cameras on the moon for a year, they'd be fucked. The color receptors would have all been fried and only the black and white ones would be left, except since the chip had to fit 3 color receptors for every black and white one, your camera now has bad resolution.

This is simple photography shit, man. As for computer generated, if you or I take a picture of anything using a digital camera, the image is 100% computer generated, because it's a string of binary code sent from the receptors to an electronic storage medium, which is then read and interpreted by a program which display that information on your computer screen. Using color filters is standard photography also. Combining three color channels on top of one HD black and white photo isn't inventing anything from thin air.

[Anonymous No.8897200]

>>8897142

Where do the dumbasses with this retarded argument keep coming from? Reddit? Paid NASA shills?

[Anonymous No.8897201]

>>8897172
>the only reason we know those rocks came from the Moon is because we compared them with the rocks we got from the Moon

So you're saying they are definitely Moon rocks, then.

[Anonymous No.8897202]

>>8897176
http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

I don't know about absolutely undeniable, you can come up with a common sense argument for almost anything if you try hard enough, despite the truth not often caring about human common sense. But there is a significant amount of evidence, both first and third party. Along with the poor quality of evidence against the landings and the sheer in feasibility of pulling off a hoax as big as the Moon landings

[Anonymous No.8897205]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

[Anonymous No.8897224]

>>8897196
>>8897202

You make some great points, thanks.

Holy fuck y'all we probably went to the moon! USA USA USA

[Anonymous No.8897456]

>>8896806
My grandma has seen the moon. I could pull up thousands of videos of it, even a live stream.

[Anonymous No.8897465]

>>8890125
>I actually believe it's possible that the manned landings were faked
keep believing. it really wasnt tho

[Anonymous No.8897495]

>>8897224

>USA USA USA

Reminder this is what people were chanting while America invaded Iraq to look for imaginary 'WMDs' (while having one of the greatest stockpile of WMDs in the world). American patriotism is built on lies and illusions.

[Anonymous No.8897507]

>>8897495
>American patriotism is built on lies and illusions
like?

[Anonymous No.8897515]

>>8896796
Geofag here, I have seen Moon rock thin sections with a microscope

[Anonymous No.8897533]

>>8890014
seeing videos about how they did it makes me think how all that effort, all those manhours, all the thinking and technical shit and probably gorillions of hours bugfixing shit by the individuals who were part of the missions

then some fucking high school dropout cocksucker has the gall to say the moon landing was fake.

must be frustrating.

[Anonymous No.8897539]

>>8897507
we're ultimately the good guys

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/

[Anonymous No.8897647]

>>8897456
Your grandma hasn't walked on the moon, or bought a souviner from its gift shop.

>>8897495
Pretty sure we went to the moon though

>>8897515
I hope to do this myself one day

[Anonymous No.8897905]

>>8896654
I don't think there's really any need to explain it, since the idea that the astronauts didn't die and then simply continued their lives using the same names and not a single person noticed, is quite obviously absurd and impossible. It doesn;t really matter how unlikely something might seem to be a coincidence if the alternative is clearly impossible to anyone with the intellect of a 5 year old.

Having said that, it isn't even that incredible a coincidence, a couple of the people look similar but not identical. Also, two of the "doppelgangers" are simply the astronaut's brother, which shows that the person who started this meme knew it was a lie and was being wilfully deceitful. What does that tell you about the validity of their claims?

[Anonymous No.8898161]

probably a few dozen ways to prove humans were on the moon but one is the lasers shot at reflective devices from earth to gauge distance to moon... which is slowly moving away from earth.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding

[Anonymous No.8898196]

>>8888734
Source or calling bs

[Anonymous No.8898288]

>>8898196
You want a source that the N1 existed?

[Anonymous No.8898567]

>>8897905

Yea, all six astronauts just happen to have almost identical siblings.... fuck off moron

>>8897456

Yea but has she seen the Apollo lander on it, niggee? That's what this thread is about.

[Anonymous No.8898576]

>>8898567
you are retarded

[Anonymous No.8898592]

>>8898576

You are a naive cocksucker

[Anonymous No.8898630]

>>8888029

>LM has the computing power of a wristwatch

And? Europeans traversed the ocean on wood without any computing power.

[Anonymous No.8898633]

>>8898630

>several thousand pounds of thrust can't even make a small hole in the lunar surface

No crater should be expected. The 10,000-pound thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI). Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably.

[Anonymous No.8898636]

>>8898633

To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater". A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.

[Anonymous No.8898644]

>>8898630

Are you seriously comparing boating with space travel you moronic brainlet?

[Anonymous No.8898649]

>>8898644

Are you in distress or something? I'm saying you don't need absurd computing powers to do difficult tasks.

[Anonymous No.8898661]

>>8898649

I'm distressed that brainlets seriously think getting a boat from point A to point B is equivalent to going to space navigation taking into account orbital mechanics and then land it safely in the right position after decelerating from hundreds of meters per seconds. You morons never think before speaking, you just parrot your popsci kike celebs.

[Anonymous No.8898667]

>>8898661

Are you on the end of your nerves or something? Maybe go to your preferred forum hugbox and relax. I was comparing computing powers, not the actual travel.

[Anonymous No.8898678]

>>8898667

There is no computing required for sea navigation, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8898683]

>>8898661
You're right. Boating is actually harder for a computer. With boating, there's plenty of variables that are constantly changing about windspeed, ocean currents, etc... the ocean isn't alwaos knocking you around and you're constantly having to recalculate shit.

In space travel you make ONE (1) calculation and...

Sit tight. With that one set of calculations you now know exactly where you are going to be, when, and exactly when you should make Course corrections.

[Anonymous No.8898685]

>>8898678

Google things before you make assumptions.

[Anonymous No.8898710]

>>8898683

Nobody took this shit into account five hundred years ago.

[Anonymous No.8898716]

I pity the generation that has grown up watching youtube "documentaries".
You probably believe the pyramids are built by aliens and cancer is cured by a sunny disposition.

[Anonymous No.8898734]

>>8898716

Apollo skepticism dates a long way back, look up Bill Kaysing.

[Anonymous No.8899038]

They'd have kept doing it if it was possible.

Obviously cheap cold war propaganda trick to divert attention from the crimes of the military industrial complex in Vietnam.

Funny how the landing stopped just as fast as they started, huh?

[Anonymous No.8899049]

>>8888029
>The science just doesn't agree
AHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.8899215]

>>8897905
>the idea that the astronauts didn't die and then simply continued their lives using the same names and not a single person noticed, is quite obviously absurd and impossible
Yo, people noticed. Hence the image.

Anyway, they didn't "simply continue their lives". Some changed their names, others kept their names but changed everything else about their lives. Keeping the name isn't as ridiculous a move as you might think. Changing your name is hard, you're likely to respond to your original name, even slip up and introduce yourself wrong in an unguarded moment. Look at how willing most people are to dismiss the same name and highly similar appearance. They wouldn't dismiss mess-ups where they're living under a different name but respond to the dead astronaut's name.

There's two possibilities:
1) They've been through a higher grade version of the witness protection program.
2) Their astronaut personas were the faked identities.

[Anonymous No.8899217]

So, what was the point of the Mercury and Gemini missions? What about all the probes sent to investigate the moon? Are those fake as well?

[Anonymous No.8899331]

>>8899217
>what was the point
That's not really helping the "the moon landings were real" side, because if you assume Mercury and Gemini were pointless without Apollo, you have to ask what makes Apollo non-pointless.

I'm here representing the view that there was clearly a significant element of fraud in Apollo, starting from the stated motives, and the real question is how much. It would certainly have made sense to fake the first landing, if they thought it was more likely that they could get away with it than to succeed in doing it for real, because regardless of all the high-minded talk about exploration, science, and the glorious future of all mankind, the true motive was to be seen beating the Soviets to it, thereby humiliating them, discrediting socialism, and propping up support for the American establishment.

Do you remember the crazy deceptive campaigns of WW2? Apollo was an act of war, it was an attempt to defeat an enemy, and successful deception would have been as effective for this purpose as real accomplishment. Under these circumstances, you need to look hard, and critically, at the evidence.

You can't just depend on occam's razor where intentional human deception is involved, because skilled deceivers take advantage of that. You can't just dismiss a whole side of the argument because you hear a bad case made, much less because someone doesn't have an answer for tangentially-related questions.

When the question is whether or how many times men landed on the moon, and whether they actually returned alive, you don't need to bundle up a case on those points with positions on unmanned moon probes, or other manned space programs.

[Anonymous No.8899507]

>>8898678
You don't strictly need computing to go the Moon either you turdburglar, there's no maths the guidance computer did that the astronauts couldn't do.

[Anonymous No.8899551]

>>8899507
The Apollo missions ran on ground control. The onboard guidance computer mostly just scheduled things and routed data. In particular, it made the navigation burns more precise, based on the most up-to-date calculations from ground tracking.

They had five high-end, room-size computers to do their number crunching for things like orbital mechanics. The millions of calculations they did per second were far beyond what humans could have done.

While everything they did in principle could have been done without computers, it would have been much less efficient, dramatically increasing costs and reducing probability of success.

[Anonymous No.8899609]

>>8899038
Anyone who makes the "why haven't we been back" argument immediately disqualifies themselves from making any judgement about whether we went to the moon.

It shows that you fundamentally don't understand anything about the space race or why America and the Soviets were trying to get to the moon in the first place. (hint: once you've spent $200 billion to plant a flag on a barren rock, there really isn't much point in doing it all over again)

[Anonymous No.8899652]

>>8899609
>Anyone who makes the "why haven't we been back" argument immediately disqualifies themselves from making any judgement about whether we went to the moon.
Anyone who makes this argument immediately disqualifies themselves from ever claiming non-brainlet status.

>(hint: once you've spent $200 billion to plant a flag on a barren rock, there really isn't much point in doing it all over again)
Just as there wasn't much point in doing it, and there wasn't much point in anything else NASA did with manned spaceflight afterward.

Most of the cost was in developing the capability, and much of what was left was in monitoring everything in excruciating detail because it was all new and anything could have fucked up at any moment. After they had, the cost of a moon landing was comparable to the cost of a single shuttle flight (which involved the launch of a similarly-sized, but much more complex vehicle).

By the second landing, Apollo 12, they had the ability to land at a targetted location, within easy walking distance of past landings. With the fourth, Apollo 15, they demonstrated the ability to land large cargos, such as the moon buggy. They had the technology to build a base, even if they just kept doing week-long astronaut vacations, and no one-way cargo landings (which could have landed 10+ tons per shot).

The moon isn't just a "barren rock". It's the nearest, most accessible source of raw materials in space. There's water, carbon, and nitrogen in polar craters, which could be used for fuel production. Sending materials back from the moon to Earth is relatively easy, once there are people living and working there. Development of the moon is the only reasonable purpose of a manned space program.

The management of the US space program has been utterly bizarre ever since the Apollo program, right up to the Constellation Program where, in the 21st century, NASA tried and failed to reproduce their 1960s Apollo Program capabilities.

[Anonymous No.8899739]

>>8899652
ok, whos gonna pay for it?

probably the fantasy goverment you have planned out in your head

[Anonymous No.8899741]

>>8899551
>While everything they did in principle could have been done without computers, it would have been much less efficient, dramatically increasing costs and reducing probability of success.
which makes anons seafaring analogy valid

[Anonymous No.8899759]

>>8899652
>Most of the cost was in developing the capability, and much of what was left was in monitoring everything in excruciating detail because it was all new and anything could have fucked up at any moment. After they had, the cost of a moon landing was comparable to the cost of a single shuttle flight (which involved the launch of a similarly-sized, but much more complex vehicle).
Sure, but you need a Saturn V-class vehicle to get to the moon, and Saturn had been cancelled before the Apollo missions had even finished. They didn't even use all of the ones they had built, two of them ended up in museums.

For a bunch of reasons it was decided to scrap all the Saturn infrastructure and instead develop the Shuttle, presumably because it was believed that reusability was the way forward in space. In hindsight yeah, the Shuttle was way shittier than hoped and it probably would have made more sense to just keep making expendable Apollo hardware, but they didn't know that at the time. They had visions of Shuttles going up and down every week and making space flight routine.

>The moon isn't just a "barren rock". It's the nearest, most accessible source of raw materials in space. There's water, carbon, and nitrogen in polar craters, which could be used for fuel production.
There's resources there, it's just not economically viable to get them.

[Anonymous No.8899769]

>>8899331

That's all fine and dandy but the landing and its stages of flight were independently observed.

[Anonymous No.8899800]

>>8899739
>>After they had, the cost of a moon landing was comparable to the cost of a single shuttle flight
>ok, whos gonna pay for it?
Same people who paid for all the pointless shit with manned spaceflight NASA did afterward, like the space shuttle, ISS, and now SLS/Orion (fresh news today: they had a little whoopsie with the "LOX dome" of the SLS prototype in the factory, pushing the entire schedule back and the cost up again).

They did over a hundred shuttle flights, after it was obvious before the first flight that it would never serve its intended purpose of lowering launch costs.

ISS was originally a project to use up all the cheap, plentiful shuttle flights they were anticipating. When it turned out there were no cheap, plentiful shuttle flights, it became an excuse to keep running a shuttle nobody wanted to fly anything on because it was too expensive and flew too irregularly.

To hear some people say it, NASA spending was cut to the bone after Apollo, but that's not true at all. The absolute peak year (1966) was about $44 billion, while the absolute lowest (1980) that came after was over $14 billion. In the year they first landed on the moon (1969), it was under $28b, and they carried on doing landings as it dipped under $20b.

The average during Apollo was $26b, and since then, mostly it has hovered in the mid-to-high teens. Currently it's at $19.5b.

They spent a lot of money in the rush to develop technology for Apollo, and build huge, complex facilities in a hurry, but they were starting from almost nothing. They could have sustained regular moon landings, and the accumulation of durable equipment at a moon base, without any higher budgets than NASA actually got and spent somehow.

...assuming Apollo really worked.

[Anonymous No.8899822]

>>8899759
You're describing bizarre behavior and making excuses for it.

The simplest explanation for ending the Apollo program after just a few flag-planting missions and never going back in half a century is that they didn't actually do it. They hadn't actually solved the problem of landing men on the moon and returning them safely to Earth, and if they kept faking it, they'd get caught eventually.

>>8899769
>the landing and its stages of flight were independently observed.
You mean some releases of gas and radio transmissions were independently observed.

Nobody independently observed that humans were aboard, or that the mass of the object launched was fully that of the described spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.8899860]

Here are 10k+ pictures of the apollo program:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive

I know that wont convince anybody that thinks all the footage is fake. But I guess the point I am trying to make is, that this would be the most sophisticated and lucky conspiracy in history. Take all the footage, that would have been a huge fucking effort to fake at the time and still to this day. Take the wittnesses, the live streams, the pics of the landing site by orbiting probes, the physical evidence like moon rocks, the confirmation of the success by the russians, the reproducable laser experiments that need the retroreflectors on the moon to work, the lack of concrete evidence against it, the lack of any involved person to ever present something contradicting the landing, take the discoveries that were later confirmed by more modern missions, the fact that almost every critique about the validity of the landing is based on misconceptions about spacefaring, radiation, photography and physics,...
It would be a global conspiracy that seems more amazing and complicated than an actual moon landing. Just my 2 cents tho, pretty sure everybody has already made up their minds about it no matter what

[Anonymous No.8899882]

>>8899822
>The simplest explanation for ending the Apollo program after just a few flag-planting missions and never going back in half a century is that they didn't actually do it.
If that's what you want to believe then I doubt I could ever convince you otherwise. I mean, I actually agree with most of what you say about NASA's use of its budget and what it should have been doing, but it seems far simpler to just put that down to government incompetence, since a hoax has all sorts of implications which are very hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.8899918]

>>8899860
>the fact that almost every critique about the validity of the landing is based on misconceptions about spacefaring, radiation, photography and physics,...
Almost every defense of the validity of the landing can also be described this way. Most people aren't all that bright, well-informed, or disciplined in the way they argue, regardless of what side of any issue they fall on.

If you bundle up all the arguments on either side of the issue, they mostly add up to a lot of stupid bullshit.

For instance, in this post, you equate the belief that the manned moon landings involved some degree of deception with the position that all positive results of both American and Soviet moon programs were faked: that there were no impactors, orbiters, unmanned landers, unmanned rovers, or unmanned sample return missions. They're not the same positions at all.

They had a number of catastrophic failures of the unmanned landers. That's the kind of result you'd expect from doing such an ambitious new project. But since the moon race was all about appearances rather than an interest in substantive outcomes, neither side wanted to show such callousness as to splatter astronauts across the surface of the moon, or strand them to suffocate or commit suicide.

The strongest arguments against the moon landings being real, without going into detailed examination of the evidence, are:
1) the shocking reliability of Apollo moonshots despite the difficulty of the task (as demonstrated by the unmanned landers) and lack of experience, and
2) the abrupt abandonment of the capability of landing men on the moon after its demonstration, and failure to repeat the feat in half a century.

What NASA claimed to do with Apollo is inconsistent with the level of competence they demonstrated before and after.

[Anonymous No.8899984]

>>8899882
>a hoax has all sorts of implications which are very hard to believe.
As the Amazing Randi liked to point out when debunking hoaxes, most of the implications of the available evidence exist only in the imaginations and presumptions of observers untrained in deception. You see a clever trick, you confuse the whole structure your mind builds around it with the actual body of evidence, and you suppose that nearly everything you saw would have needed to be part of some incredibly elaborate trick, when actually most of what you saw was perfectly ordinary and the deception was accomplished by a relatively small and simple deviation from what you think you saw happen.

For instance:
>There were so many people working on the Apollo project, they'd all have to be in on it!
The vast majority of them didn't need to be. Even the guys in mission control were all looking at data fed to them by a computer, hearing people over speakers, and there was only one station that was allowed to talk to the astronauts.

>If you think the landing wasn't real, that means you think it had to nearly all be fake, right?
Nearly all of it could have been real, except for the part about actually risking the lives of astronauts in a moon landing. Rather than receiving transmissions from the newly-landed LEM, they were being relayed from a previously-landed piece of equipment. They had scripts to play for anything that could have gone wrong with the (entirely unmanned) orbital operations, to make it into a heroic story like Apollo 13.

What did they have to gain? Primarily avoidance of the risk of humiliation of killing crews in space, and thereby building permanent monuments on the moon to the inferiority of the American Way.

Consider the possibility that the best the technology of the day could do was a 50-80% chance of successful landing. They could make a near certainty of at least one unacceptable, shameful crew loss, into a near certainty of the appearance of glorious success.

[Anonymous No.8900021]

>>8899984
That's cool. I assume you have some kind of evidence for this series of unmanned landings at the Apollo sites, right?

[Anonymous No.8900064]

>>8899984
I agree that most people who dismiss hoaxers present a straw man version, and often don't know what they're talking about. But even the most minimal hoax leaves far too many incredible implications. You're still going to need probably hundreds of people to pull off the faked footage, feeding of information to all aspects of mission control without anyone noticing anything, and just generally keeping everything in an operation involving hundreds of thousands of people running smoothly while those people didn't realise they weren't actually doing what they thought they were.

Then you're left with hours upon hours of footage that would be difficult if not impossible to fake with 1960s technology, the fact the landing sites have been imaged by satellites (I suppose they could have been unmanned and had robots go around making the foot tracks supposedly made by the astronauts, but that really beggars belief), and most telling to me, the detail that they really did build a rocket capable of landing a man on the moon, and launched it, leaving not a whole lot left to do to make faking anything worthwhile.

Yeah, you can come up with reasons why they might have had reason to fake it, and you can point to vague things that imply it could have been fake, like the amazing success of Apollo compared to the rest of spaceflight history. But there just isn't any compelling reason to think it actually was fake from an unbiased perspective. It always starts from a prior assumption that it's fake, and then evidence is made to fit that.

[Anonymous No.8900093]

>>8888029
>>Van Allen belt radiation levels would have fried the astronauts
I don't think you know how radiation works

[Anonymous No.8900104]

the fact that this thread exists is a shameful mark against the entire human species.

The stupid are always trying to drag us back into the dark ages.

[Anonymous No.8900224]

>>8900021
Apollo 12's landing site was officially the site of a previous Surveyor landing.

Apollo 6, 8, and 10 were all pre-landing Saturn V missions meant to go to near-moon space which would have allowed spare landing attempts. With 10 such launches, and 6 landings, they only needed a 60% success rate (67% of the lander, since Apollo 6 was a launch vehicle failure) to have a landed transmitter location for each "manned mission". Any excess ones could have been deliberately ditched on the far side of the moon, where the debris would be unlikely to ever be found, let alone correctly identified.

>>8900064
>without anyone noticing anything
This is the lamest argument from the "they really did it" camp. People *did* notice things. People have been calling it a hoax since it happened.

>the detail that they really did build a rocket capable of landing a man on the moon, and launched it, leaving not a whole lot left to do to make faking anything worthwhile.
Did you read what you're responding to? NASA's *other* lunar-lander program, Surveyor, had a 2 out of 7 (28%) catastrophic failure rate, and that was just a small unmanned lander, without a dicey launch, rendezvous and docking procedure.

They would have had a very high probability of killing the crew on their first landing, and a near certainty of killing one over the course of the program. Consider that this is the NASA that actually managed to burn a crew to death in an Apollo capsule *on the ground*. What are the odds that they went 9 for 9 bringing the boys home on every launch beyond LEO they've ever attempted, with 6 actual landings?

[Anonymous No.8900430]

>>8899918
>the shocking reliability of Apollo moonshots
considering the many "stepping tones" missions and all the failrures, I think there is nothing shoking about the amount of succesful mission
>the abrupt abandonment of the capability of landing men on the moon
but they didnt stop becauce they became thecnically unable to visit the moon. There just wasnt a reason to do another expensive and dangerous mission

[Anonymous No.8900515]

>>8900224
>This is the lamest argument from the "they really did it" camp. People *did* notice things. People have been calling it a hoax since it happened.
Nobody with any credibility. As far as I can tell the hoax movement started from Bill Kaysing sperging out, and from there a bunch of people thought "I like the sound of that" and jumped on the bandwagon, finding whatever evidence they could to support it. Essentially nobody comes to believe in a hoax by a careful, unbiased analysis of the events, they always hear arguments from people who have an agenda and have had decades to build up an entire narrative around it.
>>8900224
>What are the odds that they went 9 for 9 bringing the boys home on every launch beyond LEO they've ever attempted, with 6 actual landings?
I'm not gonna lie, it is remarkable and it's often downplayed just how unbelievable it is that they all got back. But it's vaguely circumstantial evidence for a hoax at best. It certainly shouldn't convince anyone in a court of law, for example.

[Anonymous No.8900545]

>>8897515

Curiousfag here, how are they different to Earth rocks?

[Anonymous No.8900546]

>>8888098
Nice studio

[Anonymous No.8900596]

>>8896384
>government spends literally decades preparing a massive hoax
>fakes huge amount of documents, recruits hundreds if not thousands of false witnesses to establish false identities
>somehow, nobody out of the hundreds blabs, not even one
>fakes death of a few astronauts for no apparent reason
>gives them surgery to make them look different
>ruins it all by giving the false identities names incredibly similar to those of the originals
apparently our government is determined enough to put in the effort behind such a hoax and expert enough to stop anyone from spilling the beans, but too stupid to change the names properly. conspiratards believe this unironically.

>Snopes started taking strong positions on little or no evidence
>says the guy who bases his claim of a massive government conspiracy on the fact that there are people with names similar to those of dead astronauts

[Anonymous No.8900604]

>>8896589
>Source for your claim?
go to the beach you fuckwit. can you see your reflection in the sand?

>>8896816
>all substances either reflect light nearly perfectly, like a mirror, or don't reflect light at all
do you actually believe this?
(the answer to your question is that you can still bounce a laser off of lunar regolith; you just get a much dimmer reflection.)

>>8898567
>people's brothers look like them
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

>>8898678
>>8898710
>There is no computing required for sea navigation
>Renaissance-era sailors didn't know about winds and currents and how to adjust for them
is this niBBa serious

[Anonymous No.8900613]

>>8899652
>NASA tried and failed to reproduce their 1960s Apollo Program capabilities.
Highly suspicious

[Anonymous No.8900769]

>>8899822
>You mean some releases of gas and radio transmissions were independently observed.

>Nobody independently observed that humans were aboard, or that the mass of the object launched was fully that of the described spacecraft.

Yes, they did. Check the documentation.

[Anonymous No.8900805]

>>8900604

How is the nature of the 'reflector' relevant in any way you retarded nigger. You can bounce a laser beam off the lunar surface without shitty NASA moonmirrors, thereby disproving the but muh retroreflectorz argument, end of story.

[Anonymous No.8900806]

>>8890346
>appeal to authority
Explain how you are any different than a religion fag.

[Anonymous No.8900914]

>>8900613
>Politicians polliticed
>Highly suspicious
Really?

>>8900805
>How is the nature of the 'reflector' relevant in any way
Because the signal you would get back with and without a reflector are measurably different?
The paint on a wall reflects light, and my bedroom mirror reflects light, but they still look completely different.

[Anonymous No.8900938]

>>8900914

Well then post some numbers that shows there is a difference. Besides, those 'retroreflectors' could be one of the countless Russian and American probes, this proves nothing.

[Anonymous No.8900975]

>>8900769
>>Nobody independently observed that humans were aboard, or that the mass of the object launched was fully that of the described spacecraft.
>Yes, they did. Check the documentation.

>yes, they did, you dig for it to prove my point for me, then when you come back with something that seems to sort-of match and argue against it, I'm going to say that's not what I was talking about and still not be specific

Don't be a dick. To independently observe that humans were aboard, you'd have to be there on the moon when they got out.

[Anonymous No.8901150]

>>8900975
>To independently observe that humans were aboard, you'd have to be there on the moon when they got out.
Or have access to live video of the event, that was broadcast from the moon.

[Anonymous No.8901195]

>>8901150
Watching a NASA broadcast of a NASA camera of a NASA operation is not what "independent observation" means, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.8901257]

>>8900975

So you haven't read the relevant material. There's nothing to discuss.

[Anonymous No.8901700]

>>8888029
7/7

[Anonymous No.8901702]

>>8900975
Based on your standard, every space mission ever (including the ones we do today) is potentially fake footage.

[Anonymous No.8901704]

Can we get a list of all fake space missions? I know the Moon landing is fake but what about the rest? What % of them are fake out of the total?

[Anonymous No.8901723]

>>8901704
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/

kek

This one claims to have been there even after Pluto has been removed from the Solar System.

[Anonymous No.8901740]

>>8901723
Removed? It's a dwarf planet now. Low quality bait.

[Anonymous No.8901855]

>>8892446
>So autistic that he thinks his facial blindness indicates a conspiracy

[Anonymous No.8901864]

>>8892616
>His chin, nose, ears, eyes, and brow changed places but he kept his name

[Anonymous No.8901884]

>>8893632
>1969
>Broadcast television
>Computers voting on pixels
>PIXELS
laughingmodulators.ntsc

[Anonymous No.8901910]

>>8900914
>Really?
Yes it's highly suspicious that NASA apparently forgot how to land on the moon after doing it several times.

What are the odds all those missions would succeed anyway?

This is hard to believe for several reasons.

[Anonymous No.8901916]

>>8901855
>believing in fake diseases

[Anonymous No.8901939]

>>8901916
>Autism
>Fake