Moon landings

File: 2.04 MB, 2580x2452, FullMoon2010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Moon landings Anonymous Fri Nov 10 16:49:47 2017 No.9287984 [Reply] [Original]

Did it happen?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 16:52:05 2017 No.9287987 no

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 16:53:06 2017 No.9287989 yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 16:53:44 2017 No.9287990 >>9287987 >>9287989 fucking hell

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 16:54:02 2017 No.9287991

No they didn't, anyone who can think critically knows they were bullshit, even those who pretend they believe them.

Credit where credit is due though, very impressive hoax, and no doubt I would have fallen for it hook, line and sinker if I lived in the 60s.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:00:09 2017 No.9287997 >>9287991 T. brainlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:01:47 2017 No.9288000 >>9287997 T. brainlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:03:19 2017 No.9288004 >>9288000 T. brainlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:03:22 2017 No.9288005 Did they land on the other side of the moon? If not should be able to see proof on the surface.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:04:10 2017 No.9288008 you'd think soviets would have said something if they thought it was larping

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:07:33 2017 No.9288011 >>9288005 We can see it and we have seen it but these mental dwarfs will just say photoshop. There is zero to be gained from these threads, flat earth threads, etc. Stop wasting your life here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:07:35 2017 No.9288013 >>9288004 They didn't happen buddy. I'm sure we just magically learned how to get to the fucking moon in 1969 even though we can't even do it now.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:09:36 2017 No.9288021 >>9288013 evidence?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:12:05 2017 No.9288026 >>9288021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SfSQZjoKhg Just look how uncomfortable that autist looks lying through his teeth. He KNOWS we've never been there before, but somehow we just "destroyed that technology"?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:16:02 2017 No.9288035 Fuck I really need to stop replying to bait posts

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:18:02 2017 No.9288041 >>9288035 >e-everything I don't agree with is bait!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:21:38 2017 No.9288047 >>9288041 Not everything, just this dumb fucking thread.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 17:33:24 2017 No.9288069

How could that shitty looking Lunar Module broadcast a TV signal 200,000+ miles away to satellites that are supposedly spinning with the earth at over 1000mph? Do you know how big TV transmitters are? Do you know the massive amount of power they require?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 19:13:58 2017 No.9288249 >>9288069 >Hurr durr what are directional antennas and line of sight

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 19:34:12 2017 No.9288296

>>9287984

Yes, and the best part of all is that the physical evidence is all over the place, just waiting for us to re-visit it. But of course that won't matter to the deniers. Once you are committed to a lie, you'll always defend it unto ego death, even denying your own lying eyes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 19:40:31 2017 No.9288303 >>9288249 What a fantastic explanation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:28:30 2017 No.9288477 File: 43 KB, 480x475, fakeearth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9287984

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:37:41 2017 No.9288496 >>9288477 DO I LOOK LIKE I KNOW WHAT A JAY PEG IS

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:37:57 2017 No.9288497 >>9288477 That rectangle around the earth is simply Gravitonian Radiation emitting from the north and south pole (it's basically dark matter for those brainlets out there). Science wins again!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:42:50 2017 No.9288506 File: 231 KB, 500x459, appolo_15_S13.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:50:54 2017 No.9288514 File: 86 KB, 716x712, moonfags btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:53:10 2017 No.9288516 No. Rockets don't work in space. >Muh Newton laws top fucking kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:55:58 2017 No.9288525 File: 435 KB, 2349x2373, actualmoonlander.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Aye, she may not look it, but she's a sturdy craft.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:07:18 2017 No.9288560 >>9288525 Is this a joke?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:07:32 2017 No.9288562 >>9288525 Just wow. Apollo 11. A simply stunning feat of engineering. A true warrior. Incredibly, it only required 3 nano watts of power to be fully functional. That's barely enough power to set a single atom on fire!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:14:44 2017 No.9288581 >>9288560 No, that's the real deal. If you're referring to the comment, then yes , I was just shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:18:44 2017 No.9288593 >>9288562 >Fire >In space Further proof that it was all a hoax.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:41:04 2017 No.9288640 File: 48 KB, 977x468, moon-StrangeVisorShapesShow124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:42:24 2017 No.9288646 File: 129 KB, 507x702, 11aldrinaccouterments.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:02:21 2017 No.9288685
File: 172 KB, 670x322, 6a00d8341c630a53ef01539166b12d970b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment."

Apollo 8, 10 - 17 missions have observed evidence.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks.

Aside from NASA, a number of entities and individuals observed, through various means, the Apollo missions as they took place.

But who knows, maybe there's a global conspiracy.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:09:27 2017 No.9288701
File: 99 KB, 450x337, hush.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9287984
You fool. Gona get us all killed.
Everybody here knows the truth. The government spent trillions keeping the secret and killing everyone who talked. Just play along. Like we all do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:16:48 2017 No.9288710 >>9288008 Also, why wouldn't the Soviets have just larped an even better moon landing, with blackjack and hookers? They are crazy for state conspiracies over there, as much, if not more than here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:50:10 2017 No.9288749 >>9288685 Are you telling me the fucking tire marks, from 50 years ago, are still on the moon?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:59:26 2017 No.9288759 >>9288749 there's no wind you dummy, it doesn't have an atmosphere so yes

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:48:35 2017 No.9288802

>>9287984
Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon. Let my argument be it is too far away (4 E8 meters) for that much weight (3 E6 kg). Current satellites of that time were 100x closer (3 to 4 E6 meters) and 100-1000x times lighter.

Distance from Earth to Moon (meter): 4 E8
Distance from Earth to satellites of that time (meter): 3 to 4 E6

Mass of rocket that is claimed to brought humans to Moon (integrale of kg per meter):
>3 E6 to 5 E4 from Earth to 2 E5 (at that point module was separated from carrier rocket)
>5 E4 to 5 E3 from 2 E5 to surface of Moon
>With 5 E3 from surface of Moon to Earth

Mass of satellites of that time (kg): order of magnitude E3 to E4

I accept that unmanned devices did land on Moon. Latest lunar orbiter had a mass of 4 E3, 10x lighter than manned spacecraft.

In anticipation to the most common counterarguments
>There is a reflective surface in Moon that the men installed. You can shine laser onto it
Unmanned device could've easily planted that. I accept that reflective surface of that kind couldn't have formed spontaneously.
>Why would they fake a moon landing?
Power display. USSR and USA were heavily influenced by competition that could've driven them to such acts.
>What difference does it make whether they were on the Moon or not?
Humans have unrealistic expectations on space transportation possibilities. I want to reinforce the concept that humanity will (1) never live on any other celestial body other than Earth (2) never be able to transport any instrument outside the Solar system (3) never find extraterrestrial life. These realistic expectations will possibly lead to better environmental policies.

In conclusion: I claim a human has never touched the surface of Moon and returned alive.

How would you attack my claim so that I myself could reproduce the results? Merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say, and that for a claim to be true, it must also be verified by someone else (for example, not USA).

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:57:45 2017 No.9288814 yes it happened just watch this https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiV-taq67XXAhUE5SYKHWzqCxsQyCkIKjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5C5_dOEyAfk&usg=AOvVaw0YB7oJrdtyaDNgqiW2F_r5

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 01:01:02 2017 No.9288817 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 01:07:55 2017 No.9288824 >>9288516 I've been saying that for ages, planes, helicopters and rockets push against the air. In space there is nothing to push against. Moon landings are all lies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 01:10:32 2017 No.9288827 >>9288685 I can see pixels. Also, soviets were conned like everyone else.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 02:34:15 2017 No.9288886

>>9288824
Rockets create thrust with a powerful force that drives the spacecraft forward. Air is not necessary, in fact it is actually a hindrance. The low gravity of the moon along with the fact that there is no air resistance allows rockets to thrust an object much more efficiently than on the earth. On the other hand, a helicopter is more like a flying insect. The wings require air resistance to push on the air underneath the insect. This is what allows the insect to fly, it is nothing like a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 05:55:22 2017 No.9289054 >>9288886 your mom is a flying insect

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 07:08:19 2017 No.9289132 >>9288759 If it doesn't have an atmosphere then where does the dust and soil come from to make the tire marks? Wouldn't the room just be a rock?

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 07:12:04 2017 No.9289139

>>9288886
What the fuck are you saying?
It's pushing against the air, like when there's a explosion and you feel a wave of air push against you from the displacement.

Otherwise you could just close the bottom of the rocket/firework or the bottom of a bullet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 07:22:17 2017 No.9289157 >Rockets work by burning fuel. >To burn things you need air. >There is no air in space nor on the moon. It did happen. In a movie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:27:19 2017 No.9289214 >>9288685 These are fake. The proof is the tire tracks are disproportional to the size of the lander module.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:45:14 2017 No.9289226 >>9289139 Clearly there is air in space and on the moon. NASA has been covering this up to prevent people relocating to other planets in order to keep earth property prices high.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:53:44 2017 No.9289235 >>9289226 I believe the moon is much smaller and closer to earth with air between the two.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 09:14:00 2017 No.9289254 >>9287984 Have you ever found a picture taken from Earth showing the moon rover's tracks and the USA flag on the moon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:40:16 2017 No.9289480 >>9289139 Are you retarded? You do know modern ammunition works in space, right? Same principle as a rocket. Create a massive amount of force behind the object to propel it forward.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:41:59 2017 No.9289482 >>9289157 Oxygen is stored on spaceships to ignite fuel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:22:06 2017 No.9289519 >>9288802 >Integrale Also >Igblyign that satellites use the maximum of their booster's capabilities

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:24:24 2017 No.9289521 >>9287991 Lol how did they fake it then? And if they had to use secret tech to fake it than why couldn't they have used secret tech to go to the moon instead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:26:55 2017 No.9289528 >>9289157 Assuming that you're serious, go read a copy of Ignition!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:29:12 2017 No.9289531 >>9288005 Pro tip, you can. Buy a telescope or find out how to make one if you think that a purchased one would somehow lie to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:31:24 2017 No.9289534 >>9288026 You're subhuman

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:32:56 2017 No.9289535 >>9288477 Autism has consumed you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:34:23 2017 No.9289538 File: 89 KB, 838x1048, FB_IMG_1508110487454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9288514 Wow in 5 seconds you showed you don't understand how camera, or reflections work. Brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:38:05 2017 No.9289554 >>9288749 This is how you can believe things like the moon landing are a hoax, literally have no fucking clue about anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:38:33 2017 No.9289556 >>9289528 I read that book a few years back after a recommendation from /sci/, its an odd mishmash of technical information and memoir that's really engrossing and a pretty short read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:43:39 2017 No.9289572 >>9288824 That's not how that works brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:45:54 2017 No.9289577 >>9289235 Oh Yeah? Is the earth also flat and patrolled by a spotlight sun?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 12:52:25 2017 No.9289593 >>9288516 >>9288824 >thrust only occurs in fluid atmospheres LOL

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:25:24 2017 No.9289677
File: 152 KB, 1305x813, SECOND.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Some of the images provided to the public by NASA are likely training missions, air-brushed, or studio fabrications.

Why?

Because what they found out there is "Classified"...

Yes- The Moon Missions are/were real.

There are creatures up there and they are not hostile, but not friendly either.

They will fuck with your mind, and your equipment, making any contact extremely uncomfortable.

For the most part Earth Degenerates are Not Welcome.
.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:29:28 2017 No.9289691 >>9289554 >solar wind would strip our planet's atmosphere if it weren't for magnetism >but does jack shit to fucking tire tracks on the moon Yeah, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:32:23 2017 No.9289698 File: 93 KB, 894x792, CLOSE UPS 1RED.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289677

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:43:16 2017 No.9289727 >>9287984 The best proof? 20 years of acceptence from the USSR versus 20 years of internet nekbeard "truthers". If it was faked it would have been blown before the end of July 1969

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:47:55 2017 No.9289742 >>9289132 Impacts. Rocks and shit from space hit the moon and fragment on impact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 13:51:09 2017 No.9289750 >>9287984 Yes, multiple times

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:21:11 2017 No.9289820 >>9287984 lets just say if things were any other way, things would be different

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:21:42 2017 No.9289821 >>9289691 You're such a mongoloid, please keep posting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:26:08 2017 No.9289830 File: 1.26 MB, 2000x1987, Apollo8-Mirror-clip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only way NASA could have got so many Moon rocks is that they got them from getting men onto the Moon

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:35:59 2017 No.9289849 >>9289727 Not to mention that faking it would have required tech that didnt exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:40:51 2017 No.9289860 >>9289830 "Moon thruthers" claim that there are no proven moon rocks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:45:58 2017 No.9289865 >>9287991 T.brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:48:56 2017 No.9289872 >>9289860 u wot m8?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:52:56 2017 No.9289882 File: 2 KB, 125x125, 1476881196465s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289538 >not an argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:56:41 2017 No.9289890 >>9289698 You're making hoaxers look bad with this retarded shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:56:54 2017 No.9289892 yes. The Soviet Union was at the height of their power in the 1970s. It would have been a propaganda coup to prove the American moon landing a hoax. Yet the Soviets never even attempted to discredit the moon landings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:57:53 2017 No.9289895 >>9289892 exactly, this is the biggest flaw in moon landing deniers. Russia would have been all over proving it was faked and they didn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 14:58:13 2017 No.9289898 >>9289820 Spoken like an engineer pretending to be a scientist

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:01:04 2017 No.9289901 >>9289895 How would the Russians know exactly? Please enlighten us with your knowledge of 60's Soviet space tracking technology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:02:50 2017 No.9289904 >>9289830 We have mars rocks, too. When did we go there?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:05:40 2017 No.9289911 >>9289901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:07:29 2017 No.9289914 >>9289904 We have a few grams of Mars rocks, we have hundreds of kg of Moon rocks

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:10:19 2017 No.9289919 >>9288640 Man in a suit wearing skis?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:11:09 2017 No.9289921 >>9289914 >The moon is 33 million miles closer and caught in earths gravity well

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:12:28 2017 No.9289924 >>9289919 Obviously

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:12:29 2017 No.9289925 >>9289921 That's not a counter argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:14:27 2017 No.9289929 >>9289911 Yould probably understand why that's not an answer if you bothered to read your link.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:15:28 2017 No.9289933 >>9289925 >>>9289921 (You) >That's not a counter argument No. It's a reasonable explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:18:17 2017 No.9289941 >>9289933 A reasonable explanation for hundreds of kgs of Moon rocks turning up after NASA claimed to have been to the Moon is that the Moon is close to the Earth compared to Mars

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:21:28 2017 No.9289950 >>9289941 Werner von Braun scoured Antarctica for moonrocks prior to the Apollo program.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:24:36 2017 No.9289961 >>9289882 You act like there was an argument to respond too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:29:27 2017 No.9289978 >>9289950 Fuck wow, imagine if they'd sent a geologist instead of a rocket scientist who didn't know what Moon rocks looked like! Especially if that geologist knew they could be found there 20 years before it was known they could be found there!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:30:27 2017 No.9289982 >>9288514 In what way is this proof that the moon landing is fake?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:34:20 2017 No.9289989 >>9289961 You said the infograph was incorrect but didn't explain why.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:36:26 2017 No.9289995 >>9289978 https://phonyapollomoonlandings.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/nasas-moon-rocks-lunar-meteorite-fragments-found-in-antarctica/

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:40:37 2017 No.9290012 itt: A U T I S M

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:41:12 2017 No.9290015 >>9287991 T.brainlet

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:41:50 2017 No.9290016

>>9289995
The first link is the only one that claims they got rocks from Antarctica and the link doesn't work

Von Braun did go to Antarctica, not that he would know what a Moon rock would look like

That's a single fake Moon rock, they gave out so many samples that many more fakes would have been spotted by now. There are other Moon rocks in the Netherlands that they didn't think were faked that they have owned since the early 70s

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:44:32 2017 No.9290026 >>9290016 How would the Netherlands know what a moonrock looks like?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 15:47:04 2017 No.9290030 >>9287991 >think critically Go back to Facebook Tyrone

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:00:22 2017 No.9290057 >>9289989 What does the info graphic even claim? How are any of its claims proof of anything of anything rather than just a description of the picture?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:03:23 2017 No.9290064 >>9290012 The moon landing didn't happen and here's my crazy complicated explanation as to why that involves "them" using secret technology to make a fake video. Also they couldbt have gone to the moon becuase their technology wasnt advandced enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:07:09 2017 No.9290077 >>9290057 You can see how close the horizon is in both the background and in the opposite direction in the reflection of the visor. That is not a natural setting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:18:18 2017 No.9290100 >>9290077 How So? What does that make it not a natural setting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:20:50 2017 No.9290108 File: 336 KB, 931x1334, 1492968266703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread makes me sad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:22:53 2017 No.9290112 >>9287991 T.brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:28:34 2017 No.9290125 >>9290100 The horizon should be at least 1.5 miles in either direction on the moon. The landers shadow almost reaches the horizon. That doesn't look off to you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:30:10 2017 No.9290129 File: 221 KB, 1188x550, mad-men.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9288514 really activates your almonds

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:31:21 2017 No.9290132 File: 433 KB, 1344x1200, proof.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:35:01 2017 No.9290141 >>9290125 No. It doesn't. Why does it look "off" to you? I think you might be failing to understand focal points.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:41:21 2017 No.9290151

>>9290141
Maybe. I'm no expert. Here: I found some links I have saved that may be of interest to those who are in this thread:
**Essential reading:**

[Wagging the Moondoggie](http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf))

[A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images](http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm))

[Examples of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo photography](http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm))

**Essential watching:**

[A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4))

[What Happened on the Moon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4))

[Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybJMuowl0UU))

[Astronauts Gone Wild](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU))

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:41:47 2017 No.9290154
File: 1.53 MB, 1277x1000, 605013main_WAC_CSHADE_O000N1800_1000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9290125
>The horizon should be at least 1.5 miles in either direction on the moon.

It's almost as if the moon isn't totally flat. I can literally go to my back yard and find a "horizon" that is closer to me than it would be on a perfect sphere.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:44:57 2017 No.9290162 >>9290151 >I'm no expert. This is the most accurate thing you have written all day.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:51:20 2017 No.9290173 >>9290162 Wow. You really burst my bubble and put me in my place with your insightful commentary. You must be an expert at criticizing strangers on the internet. My hat's off to you sir!

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:51:20 2017 No.9290174

>>9289691
Pressure from solar wind is so minuscule that it's less than a tenth of the pressure in an ultra-high vacuum. It strips planet's gases by fucking up the magnetosphere that traps gases in the atmosphere. It has no effect on the surface, not like real wind.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:51:35 2017 No.9290175

>>9290151
I've actually seen a wealth of this information and the information that refutes it well. I'd recommend trying not to overly commit to the idea that we didn't go to the moon, cognitive bias leads to many mistakes, I've tried to apply the Socratic method and such and I believe that we went to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:53:23 2017 No.9290179 >>9290154 >It's almost as if the moon isn't totally flat. Oh you fool, you believe in the moon landing AND round planets? They really have you hooked. /sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:54:48 2017 No.9290182 >>9289534 Not an argument, buddy. He clearly says that we dont have the technology to go to the moon anymore. How did we have it in 1969 if not now? Answer: we never actually had it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 16:55:47 2017 No.9290186

>>9290175
It's not that I don't believe we've been to the moon, it's how it's been presented to the public that I find many flaws with. This thread doesn't even begin to tackle the technological hurdles that were miraculously overcome to make the Apollo program a success.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 17:18:32 2017 No.9290217 >>9287991 B. trainlet

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 17:18:46 2017 No.9290219

>>9290182
>how did we have it, but don't anymore?
I'm sorry we didn't keep making ships that were able to go the moon and you think that proves something? The fact that we don't currently have any technology that can go to the moon isn't proof we arnt able to create technology that can go to the moon or that we never had the ability to go to the moon. It's just proof that going the moon isn't so worthwhile as to warrant the cost to keep going. You're argument sums up to "why didn't we keep building Apollo like space vehicles if we could" and somehow think the answer is "we didnt" rather than " we stopped wanting to"

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:04:09 2017 No.9290582 >>9288506 Holup-- when you move a camera a few feet, thngs in the foreground seem to shift more in the images than things further away? What the fuck???

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:05:18 2017 No.9290587 >>9288477 Look up the real NASA image. Earth is not in the picture. Somebody shopped it in because they thought it would look cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:31:21 2017 No.9290647 >>9288005 >fire laser at the reflector they left on the moon >it comes back

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:36:10 2017 No.9290659
File: 107 KB, 740x794, i_could_care_less.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9288026
We have no landers, we have no crew capsules that have been tested and rated for deep space and we have no rockets that can lift the required payload to do a Moon landing.

Of course, that's my interpretation of what he is saying. The video commentator and you have other interpretations but we could both be wrong because fuck language.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:38:05 2017 No.9290662 >>9288506 You discovered parallax!

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:41:18 2017 No.9290669

>>9288640
>its really strange that the thing the guy is looking at is reflected in his visor!

Either that or the argument is that the Moon landing hoax videos were filmed by tiny people because he is looking down so what we see in his reflection must be below him and in front of the camera.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:42:40 2017 No.9290675

>>9288497
None of what you said makes sense. Gravitonian radiation? Gravity and electromagnetism and two different things! And even if they were emitted by north and south poles Why would it be square-shaped? And dark matter? Don't even get me started on that one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:44:26 2017 No.9290681 >>9288516 >Rockets don't work in space. You don't even know how they work inside the atmosphere Do you?

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:48:17 2017 No.9290689

>>9289139
No moron, rockets are not propelled by air shockwaves. There is not enough air inside the fuel compartment to create such massive wave!

You know how an explosion pushes air outwards thus creating a shockwave? Well, rockets can be pushed too, you know?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 21:49:28 2017 No.9290693 >>9289139 >Otherwise you could just close the bottom of the rocket/firework or the bottom of a bullet. If you did, the explosion would push the other end thus all forces would even out! The force exerted upward = the one exerted downward

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 22:04:19 2017 No.9290729 >>9287984 no. what you saw was staged. the real landings you will never see

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 22:16:49 2017 No.9290749 >>9288516 >>9288824 Newton's laws

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 23:25:31 2017 No.9290862 >>9287984 >Did it happen? What do you mean by "it", Peasant?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 00:15:38 2017 No.9290948 >>9287989 same anon

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 00:34:03 2017 No.9290972 >>9290659 >>9290219

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 02:58:51 2017 No.9291095

>>9290972
I know, but it comes down to your interpretation of having the technology.

It's not that was aren't technically capable of doing it. Any of the major rocket manufacturers could build a rocket to go to the Moon, they do actually have the technology, but we have nothing that is actually capable of doing it right now.

So it comes down to whether you interpret his statement as talking about the required equipment being manufactured and ready right now, or the knowledge, materials and processes to make that equipment.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:34:41 2017 No.9291232 Jesus Christ. >"The Moon Landings were a hoax". Next thing you'll be telling me is that The WWE is fake too. Fucking stupid asses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:36:41 2017 No.9291235 >>9287984 Nvidia relased a video showing a model of the scene. They added the reflection of the suit and some other things. For certain we can say that if it didn't happen then Nvidia are part of the deep state.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:48:43 2017 No.9291250 >>9290647 Big deal, what an incredible accomplishment for mankind, the sun is reflecting off the moon all the time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:10:04 2017 No.9291273 File: 90 KB, 664x814, received_1746119725430160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289677 T.moonman

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:16:40 2017 No.9291278 File: 130 KB, 537x817, 1509852537044.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289901 You know they were building a lunar vessel too right? Of course you don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:19:50 2017 No.9291281 File: 8 KB, 318x315, 1509955625832.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289925 Have you got needs? Like the need to wear a bicycle helmet onto your highschool bus?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:42:35 2017 No.9291301 File: 78 KB, 480x602, 1509699113378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9290132 Spoopy

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:42:47 2017 No.9291302 >>9287984 this is why mars landing just dream

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:50:46 2017 No.9291311 File: 78 KB, 600x450, 1509909317067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291250 How retarded can one person be? I think you found the limit

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:31:41 2017 No.9291342 File: 528 KB, 913x1024, H4NSXd5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:33:42 2017 No.9291347 File: 696 KB, 1200x1725, apollo-11-eagle-cutaway.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:35:12 2017 No.9291348 File: 220 KB, 640x480, Decollage_du_lem.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:49:17 2017 No.9291362 File: 281 KB, 1024x797, 12154193883_f8a4f7b504_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:51:23 2017 No.9291365 File: 254 KB, 1304x884, eaglelaunch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:54:00 2017 No.9291368 File: 261 KB, 826x1024, 24126741642_cb09cc85f5_b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:55:44 2017 No.9291371 File: 25 KB, 300x260, s72-35614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:09:32 2017 No.9291383 File: 801 KB, 667x500, rrqozq.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:10:47 2017 No.9291384 File: 36 KB, 640x480, Apollo-17_LM_Challenger_liftoff_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:33:58 2017 No.9291397 >>9291311 Go ahead, blow up the moon with your goddamn lasers. While you are at it, blow up mars too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:45:25 2017 No.9291408 Moon landing most likely happened. We did it during the cold war while the ruskies were trying to as well. They would have found out it was a hoax and called us out on it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:50:01 2017 No.9291413 File: 126 KB, 300x302, https---airandspace.si.edu-webimages-previews-AS11-40-5868p.jpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9288477 this>>9290587

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:52:05 2017 No.9291415 >>9291408 Maybe the russians wanted america to believe that the russians believed it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 08:59:40 2017 No.9291424 >>9291342 This is proof of fakery. All this works on a battery in 1969 but my phone can`t last a day without recharge.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:06:23 2017 No.9291495

>>9291424
>The suits were made by Playtex (the bra company).
>how is that little oxygen tank supposed to keep someone alive for hours in a vacuum?
>battery technology was absolute shit in the 60's but their lem has enough juice to keep the A/C going for days
>they took an impossible amount of photos for the time they were there, even under optimum conditions, let alone on a shitty hasselblad camera that they couldn't aim and had to manually wind each time while wearing fucking nerf gloves. Nevermind all the photos are somehow studio-quality.
>they couldn't test the lem engines to see if they even worked because the fuel was so corrosive it destroyed them after one use.
How the fuck did they dock with the lem before heading to the moon if no one was in the lem? How come no one can explain the fucking docking mechanism?
How did they depressurize and repressurize the lem so many times in a vacuum? The thing was flimsy aluminum only a few thousandths thick.
>How did they reenter earths atmosphere while travelling at 30 thousand miles per hour without burning up without the aid of computers or maneuvering rockets?
>etc., etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:12:40 2017 No.9291503 >>9287991 How did they put the flag on the moon without going there? Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:16:41 2017 No.9291508 >>9291278 >>>9289901 (You) >You know they were building a lunar vessel too right? Of course you don't. How does their failed rocket program equate to being able to track a miniscule object in the vastness of space?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:18:59 2017 No.9291513 >>9291503 Can you provide verifiable evidence that there even is a flag planted on the moon?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:22:51 2017 No.9291517 File: 106 KB, 344x391, 1510005961238.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291513 caN YoU prOViDe VEriFiFYAbLE eVideNcE thAt There eVen iS A flAG pLanTEd oN tHE mOoN

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:31:06 2017 No.9291522 >>9291517 See >>9289214 >you must be dumb because you don't share my opinion even though I can't prove what I believe is true and accept that the government would never lie to it's citizens. Really fires up my retro-rockets

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:34:46 2017 No.9291525 >>9291408 How would they find out? The only satellite they had was sputnik and all it did was beep.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:36:54 2017 No.9291527 File: 83 KB, 692x530, morn drink.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291347 >Ladder: For climbing down to the lunar surface Thanks diagram!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:37:55 2017 No.9291529 >>9291525 sputnik was the first space probe ever, not even a satellite it's out there right now, parsecs away

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:40:29 2017 No.9291533 >>9291529 >>>9291525 (You) >sputnik was the first space probe ever, not even a satellite That's my point >it's out there right now, parsecs away What is doing the Kessel run?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:41:21 2017 No.9291535 >>9291529 Probably more like AUs

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:46:06 2017 No.9291542 >>9291529 >>9291535 It was the first man-made satellite that made 1440 orbits in 21 days before falling back to earth and burning up in atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:47:16 2017 No.9291543 >>9291095 No it comes down to understandingnwhat words mean, you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:48:29 2017 No.9291546 >>9291250 Whew little Brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:49:43 2017 No.9291548 File: 243 KB, 580x580, Apollo11-LRO-March2012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291522 if you researched it you'd know there was proof. if you can't accept unanimously agreed upon historical events then it's your fault.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:50:10 2017 No.9291549 >>9291095 I understand what you mean, even though I'm the main devils advocate in this thread. Don't listen to >>9291543

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:51:42 2017 No.9291553 >>9291543 do you conspiritards get off sexually when people acknowledge you I bet. is precum leaking out of your dingle, conspiritard? do you think you're exposing da trufe conspiratard?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:52:47 2017 No.9291554 >>9291548 If you researched it even further you'd find the Adobe Photoshop watermarks embedded in the files and also see >>9289214

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:54:22 2017 No.9291556 >>9291554 everyone already btfo all your "arguments". not going to give you any more attention that your parents should have gave to you

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:57:17 2017 No.9291560 >>9291553 Why does it bother you to question a narrative when it doesn't add up quite right? Do you believe everything you see on television? Why are the only counter arguments in this thread brainlet memes?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:58:40 2017 No.9291562 >>9287984 How are we this anti-science as a culture?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:59:16 2017 No.9291563 >>9291513 Buy a telescope for $200 And you can see it from your backyard, god you "Moon thruthers" are so stupid, I always wonder how people fall for that shit but time and again you show it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 10:59:51 2017 No.9291564 >>9291556 >>>9291554 (You) >everyone already btfo all your "arguments". not going to give you any more attention that your parents should have gave to you No, but I have conceded on a couple of points that I've raised.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:01:54 2017 No.9291567

>>9291525
Research "the Russian wood pecker" for example. More pragmatically though if you can "prove" the moon lansingnis fake with all your bullshit measurements and misunderstanding then why couldn't the combined power of the Soviets figure out those same things?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:02:40 2017 No.9291569

>>9291563
>>>9291513 (You)
>Buy a telescope for $200 And you can see it from your backyard, god you "Moon thruthers" are so stupid, I always wonder how people fall for that shit but time and again you show it.
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there isn't a telescope on earth that is powerful enough to view any of the Apollo sites.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:08:22 2017 No.9291575 >>9291567 See >>9289901 And >>9291508 Also, can anyone comment on any of these? >>9291495

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:09:22 2017 No.9291580 >>9291525 I don't know anon. Point a radio receiver at the moon, and pick up the signals they're broadcasting indiscriminately towards earth. You could calculate distance and location with paper and pen.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:13:58 2017 No.9291588 >>9291580 Yes, but that wouldn't tell me the manifest of the craft whose signal I was receiving. Or even if the signal originated from there. The moon is a reflective surface that was used before the space race to bounce radio signals off of.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:29:50 2017 No.9291615

>>9291588
>The moon is a reflective surface that was used before the space race to bounce radio signals off of.
Would you think that would change the lag between broadcast and transmission? Or that a radio signal bounced off the moon would be scattered and distorted the way a broadcast originating from the moon wouldn't? You don't need to broadcast with nearly as much energy from space, because you don't have to punch through the atmosphere of earth.
Not to mention that they were up there for days, you can't fake that with a continuous transmission from a single source on earth because earth rotates around an axis. So to keep up this conspiracy you have multiple broadcast sources sending the fake signal to the moon to bounce off the moon to be picked up by the russians, and just hope no one notices the signal scattering off our own atmosphere.
Not to mention, what would this signal have been "reflected" from during the entire transit where you don't have a convenient reflective source?
That radio signal was a moving point through "empty" space that was continuously broadcasting to relay stations around the globe.
The conspiracy to trick the Russians into thinking we landed on the moon would be so big, and complicated, and predicated on technology we still don't have, that it would have just been easier to land on the moon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 11:31:10 2017 No.9291617 >>9291575 Why should I go look at those? My post is a response to those sentiment. Ho e do you not get that? Did you actuallyread my post?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 12:02:42 2017 No.9291667

>>9291615
This thread is starting to wear me out. Everything you said is true, but for the Soviets to be tracking us they would have needed powerful anntenas pointed precisely at the craft. So would the U.S., for that matter. How would the Soviets know where to point this supposed antenna?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 12:10:08 2017 No.9291681

>>9291617
My sentiment is the Soviets couldn't prove or disprove what happened and relying on them to make your case for you is insufficient to prove the plausibility of the missions given the overwhelming amount of 'bullshit measurements' and technological hurdles that say otherwise.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 12:29:41 2017 No.9291716

>>9291667
>they would have needed powerful anntenas pointed precisely at the craft.
Where would a superpower with its own space program get such things?
And again, it was a global collaborative effort, they had antenna all over the world tuning in because they wanted to maintain continuous contact with the mission. All you need is to know where one station is tracking at one time, and you deduce the rest through math.
And this wasn't something the american's exactly wanted to hide, the space race was a massive international dick waving competition, you don't think when they finally took the brass ring that they weren't going to gloat to the ruskies.
You don't have to scan the vast expanse of the cosmos either, they were trying to get to the moon as well, they knew the optimal routes and approach vectors. You just need to keep an eye out for where it *SHOULD* be and you've got a good chance of finding an aberrant radio signal where there shouldn't be one. Then you focus in on them and monitor them with radio antenna all over your massive continent spanning country.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 12:41:56 2017 No.9291736 >>9291716 Let's say your explanation is correct and they were indeed tracking a craft in orbit of the moon. How would they know it wasn't one of the lunar satellites NASA had sent up beforehand and were using to relay signals with?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:02:23 2017 No.9291786

>>9291736
I'm just afraid that as the circle starts to shrink you're going to ask how mirrors can be real.
We watched them get into the Apollo module, the one that sat on top of the Saturn V rocket. A fuck huge engineering apex designed to get three dudes and something the size of a minivan to the moon. It was the culmination of everything we had learned in the space program thus far, with the collective industrial and scientific might of the largest economy and world super power behind it.
The fact that this thing actually existed, and people saw it take off, with people inside of it means *something* went up. From that point on, and object was continuously tracked on its path from earth to the moon, with constant contact.
So lets assume that this was just for a laugh, and they were just circling the earth for a couple of days while the Lunar probe went to the moon anyways, broadcasting a relayed signal (which would have to be continuously broadcasted from multiple locations around the globe, with nothing reflecting off the atmosphere, and compensating for the lag in time that you would have in communication, because Soviets had signal intelligence looking for things like that). So lets assume all this. Where did that take off from? No one noticed a simultaneous launch? This was the cold war, ICBM's had been in existence, we had ways to watch for orbital launches or at least detect them.
It would be easier to actually go to the moon then it would be to LARP going to the moon JUST to trick the Russians.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:12:41 2017 No.9291799 >>9291786 https://youtu.be/TCY69fT6cXA This 10 minute video is irrefutable evidence of trickery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:21:21 2017 No.9291811 File: 23 KB, 640x640, i aint clicking that shit nigger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291799

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:23:51 2017 No.9291817 >>9291681 That's not an argument though. Saying that they couldn't do it but you somehow can doesn't make any sense, what resource or information do you have that they didn't and still don't have? You're ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:27:19 2017 No.9291826 >>9291799 Hahahahaha, you brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:30:10 2017 No.9291830 File: 76 KB, 255x255, you better click that shit nigger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291811 It's fucking YouTube

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:32:26 2017 No.9291833 >>9291817 Shhh. Adults are talking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:35:03 2017 No.9291837 >>9291833 Keep posting you sad autistic man.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:36:55 2017 No.9291840 >>9287984 Provide proof that it was faked rather than shitty ad-hic explanations for every individual detail as they come up. PRO TIP, YOU CANT.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:37:24 2017 No.9291841 >>9291837 >>9291826 See >>9291560

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:37:55 2017 No.9291843
File: 185 KB, 300x390, make me nigger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9291830
>muh tinfoil hat video on youtube is proof
If you can't articulate your point then you really have no point trying to advocate a crackpot theory.
You're not presenting any arguments, just suppositions based on ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:39:20 2017 No.9291845 >>9291840 See >>9291799

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:43:01 2017 No.9291853 >>9291843 >tinfoil hat video It's literally NASA footage of Apollo 11 lying about their position and using lighting and covering part of the window to make them seem further from the earth than they actually were.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:44:33 2017 No.9291858 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4 I know there's flat earth niggers itt. explain 13:00 through 16:00 to me. go on, should be quite kekworthy.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:44:44 2017 No.9291860

>>9291841
It doesn't bother me to question it, I've questioned it myself, applied the Socratic method and so forth, the thing that bothers me to some extent is thatg people are asserting these things as fact, they say they know that it was faked yet can't provide reasonable proof of that while at the same time it can reasonably be proven that we went to the moon. At this point it would either have to be some actual illuminati shit, controlling or influencing all the world's governments, or we went to the moon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:45:48 2017 No.9291861 >>9291845 I did, doesn't even attempt to make a coherent argument. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:47:11 2017 No.9291864 >>9291853 >and that PROVES we didn't go to the moon How much do you plan to sell this information to the Russians for so that they can embarrass the US on the world stage?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:49:35 2017 No.9291868

>>9291860
>some actual illuminati shit
This is at least fun. If you want to tell me the moon landings were a hoax because the reptilians don't want us to know about the hollow earth then I've got all day to listen to you, I'll bring the booze and the pizza.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:49:43 2017 No.9291870 >>9291860 >>9291864 http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/587569/NASA-really-land-Moon-Russia-probes-missing-video-lunar-rock-faked-hoax-astronaut

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:53:44 2017 No.9291877 >>9291868 That's at least entertaining, I agree. My point was mostly that it would require, basically, that the world be run by a shadow government or some other such hidden, extremely powerful, orginization for the moon landing to have been faked.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:56:11 2017 No.9291881

>>9291870
>He said: "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened."

Can you not read?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:01:25 2017 No.9291895 >>9291870 A guy, who no longer has a job with the Russians, once wanted to investigate the mis-handling of equipment and samples at NASA. 2 years stand nothing has come of it. Neat.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:02:17 2017 No.9291897

>>9291881
>But his comments are certain to be seen as a deliberate attempt to suggest there is reason to doubt the lunar landing was real – especially as he also attacked the US investigation into FIFA corruption.
Sometimes they sneak additional information into paragraphs other than the first one or two.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:04:57 2017 No.9291901 >>9291868 Take notes and make a sci fi table top rpg like dnd.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:07:13 2017 No.9291905 >>9291897 The author of the article says that. The person actually making the claim took the time to say that they weren't trying to say that America didn't go to the moon. Sometimes articles are full of conjecture.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:09:00 2017 No.9291910 >>9291897 >But his comments are certain to be seen as But that's not what his comments were. You can't be this dumb right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:15:46 2017 No.9291919 Adding to >>9291905 >>9291897 >Ruskie gets mad that the US investigated their football team >decided that's grounds for him to investigate the validity of lunar missions >no longer in the position >nothing has come of the "investigation"

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:44:03 2017 No.9291959 >>9291919 >no longer in the position >nothing has come of the "investigation" He was clearly silenced by big space.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 17:00:02 2017 No.9292262 >>9291503 It's french flag. French reached moon first.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 17:02:34 2017 No.9292271 deres a radar reflector on da moon doe

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 17:15:38 2017 No.9292297 >>9291959 >big space dont tell me they think space corps have time to worry about things like that? btw, where do these brainlets think satellite TV comes from?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 17:44:47 2017 No.9292354 File: 48 KB, 450x318, 1508404210118.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9289139

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 01:35:07 2017 No.9293158 >>9291563 Go on, take a pic then and show us. I'm not wasting 200 bucks, it`s bad enough being ripped off billions of tax money from the american people in the 60s.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 01:46:25 2017 No.9293180 >>9291786 Good Goy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 09:59:18 2017 No.9293620 >>9293158 The point of telling you to do it youself is so that you can then independently verify the truth rather than just telling me my picture is fake. Do it yourself you subhuman monster.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 11:16:50 2017 No.9293748 >>9287991 bait

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math