/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9638232]

we went to the fucking moon

[Anonymous No.9638236]

[Anonymous No.9638247]

[Anonymous No.9638257]

[Anonymous No.9638261]

[Anonymous No.9638280]

I see that you’ve discovered the ALSJ

[Anonymous No.9638283]

>>9638232
Nah. "We" barely took a... peep.

[Anonymous No.9638302]

>>9638232
>we went to the fucking moon

[Anonymous No.9638318]

does anyone know why you can't see stars on these pictures? not trying to make an statement here, just want an explanation. is it that doppler effect thing? if so, then why can we see stars from earth?

[Anonymous No.9638351]

>>9638318
LED lights have not been invented in the 60s, and using small light bulbs covered in some paint, would not look like stars.

So the common explanation is "camera exposure", because you cannot expose for night sky and humans on earth aswell, right?

[Anonymous No.9638364]

>>9638232
>>9638236
Why wasn't the film used to photograph the moon landing destroyed by the solar radiation? The moon is not protected from the solar radiation like Earth because it lacks an atmosphere and a magnetic field of its own.

During the Chernobyl accident, when reporters tried to photograph the site of the Lenin NPP their film would rapidly turn black due to the high amounts of radiation.

[Anonymous No.9638367]

>>9638318
The cameras were exposed for broad daylight since the moon is a bright place. If they were exposed for night the ground would've looked like the sun.

[Anonymous No.9638381]

>>9638318
Stars are incredibly dim compared to sunlight, even reflected sunlight. And the moon photos all had their exposures set to resolve the white astronaut EVA suits. If the exposure was extended to pick up stars, then details such as the astronaut and the surface of the moon would be washed out and nearly impossible to detect. But at least we would be able to see the stars we can already see from Earth, right?

[Anonymous No.9638385]

>>9638318
Stars are really dim, if they had set their camera exposure to capture the stars everything else would be a washed out white blob.

There's also little point in taking photos of the stars from Earth/Lunar space with a handheld camera. It would be a waste of film when you could take pictures of the earth/moon/spacecraft instead.

[Anonymous No.9638402]

no we didnt. fucking retard dreamers. the landing craft looks like some low tier thunderbirds fake shit.

[Anonymous No.9638404]

>>9638402
just like your mom lmao

[Anonymous No.9638411]

With a straight face, tell me this is real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

[Anonymous No.9638429]

It's kinda crazy how just a little over 60 years after the first airplane flew off the ground we went to the moon.

[Anonymous No.9638453]

>>9638411
That is real.

[Anonymous No.9638465]

>>9638411
Holy shit I've legitimately seen better looking special effects in movies from that era. Just goes to show you can't even trust the government to do a good job faking a lunar landing.

[Anonymous No.9638468]

>>9638453

*pats head*

That's way cool kid.

[Anonymous No.9638496]

>>9638465

You know it's real because it looks so fake.

[Anonymous No.9638520]

>>9638465
That's the problem I think. We're so spoiled by decades of elaborate special effects and CGI imitations of what we think space should look like that any real footage just looks cheap and fake by comparison. The visual quality of a big-budget hollywood production is always going to be better than that of an astronaut with a space-certified camcorder.

[Anonymous No.9638521]

>>9638364
good queston, but chernobyl might have been a different type of radiation

[Anonymous No.9638525]

>>9638520
It's not that. What I find suspicious is how fake Apollo 11 looks compared to the later missions. Like they were getting better at faking it.

And no one has yet offered an explanation for how any video footage or photographs survived the solar radiation.

[Anonymous No.9638531]

>>9638411
This looks completely fake. Unbelievable that people defend this

[Anonymous No.9638541]

>>9638465
Thank you for your unsolicited expert opinion.

[Anonymous No.9638552]

>>9638411

This does look fake to be honest.

[Anonymous No.9638553]

>>9638531

That's scientism for you.

[Anonymous No.9638592]

>>9638552
>>9638553
>>9638411
NASA did create a detailed giant sized model of the moon, with detailed craters etc., perhaps they might have used this for the fake fly-by shots. It really looks like a cheap sci-fi movie model in that YT video.

[Anonymous No.9638595]

>>9638364
they used more durable film?

[Anonymous No.9638598]

Of course we did.
What's better is that you can also step through the programming here:
http://svtsim.com/moonjs/agc.html
I'm currently working my way through the program using the Apollo guidance computer book.
https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-Architecture-Operation/dp/1441908765/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522634409&sr=8-1&keywords=apollo+guidance+computer
The different programs and how they break down is actually rather fascinating to research and step through yourself.
Admittedly, the program does have problems with certain programs. Especially if you follow checklist procedures. Doing so clears out saved IMU data and so on, which results in the program failing to run.

[Anonymous No.9638607]

>>9638592

Bingo.

>>9638598
Oh cool, thanks NASA.

[Anonymous No.9638611]

>>9638592
>>9638553
>>9638552
Okay, new theory. What if the Apollo 11 footage was, in fact, fake but the moon landing happened. Maybe the film was destroyed by the solar radiation on Apollo 11, as that was the first mission and they might not have accounted for it so they had to use fake footage.

[Anonymous No.9638613]

>>9638411
Looks real to me.

[Anonymous No.9638614]

>>9638232
Yeah, it was pretty great.

[Anonymous No.9638618]

>>9638607
It's what I do.
I simultaneously shit post and do satellite communication loading for a contracting company working for the Big N.

[Anonymous No.9638619]

>>9638364
Radiation hardened film was a thing.

The Soviets used some they recovered from the high altitude spy balloons of the Americans that landed in their territory in some of their Moon probes.

[Anonymous No.9638620]

>>9638411
It's real.

[Anonymous No.9638621]

>>9638611
It was broadcast live on TV (with a delay) via video. The film was used for the still photos. They can't have waited till the astronauts got back and noticed the ruined film, and then decided to fake it, because it was all planned to be shown live on TV.

[Anonymous No.9638622]

>>9638411
Of course it's real. Describe one aspect of that film which is inaccurate or only able to be produced in a sound stage.

[Anonymous No.9638625]

>>9638619
Yeah but that brings us back to Chernobyl. If they had radiation-resistant film, why didn't the Soviets use it to document the disaster? From what I know, the damage that would happen to the film was a real problem for journalists at the time and this was in the 80s...

[Anonymous No.9638632]

>>9638611
Very convenient. If they were honest in the first place they wouldn't have faked it.

[Anonymous No.9638633]

>go to the moon
>have zero proof
>still say you went to the moon

[Anonymous No.9638634]

>>9638619
>Radiation hardened film
Provide proof that the Apollo missions used radiation hardened film. Everywhere I've read had them using regular film, and the explanation given was that radiation was much much lower than Chernobyl, and/or the camera was shielded better (though not sure about that one either.)

[Anonymous No.9638635]

>>9638618

If it pays the bills, why not?

[Anonymous No.9638641]

>>9638634
I have no proof of that, I'm just stating that it was a thing.
It's almost a moot point because the original films from Apollo 11 in particular can't be found anymore. Pretty much everything we have was broadcast.

>>9638625
I don't think it's quite common enough for reporters to easily get their hands on it.
We do have photos of extremely radioactive things, like the elephant's foot, so it's not like there are no pictures.

[Anonymous No.9638643]

>>9638622

You can't be serious. Look at the size of the "moon" for a start.

[Anonymous No.9638651]

>>9638643
Not sure what the problem is

[Anonymous No.9638652]

>>9638643
50,000 feet up, large craters visible but the smaller ones are poorly focused which reflects the resolution of the cameras.

You're not exactly looking at a large swath of the moon, which has a radius of 1079 miles.
You can't be serious with that claim though can you?

[Anonymous No.9638653]

>>9638641
I'm sure NASA would have documented the type of camera, camera settings, type of film, etc., it'a probably out there somewhere. I've never heard of that claim before, regardless of if radiation proof film was available at the time.

[Anonymous No.9638667]

>>9638653
https://www.history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
Some of it is on here. It does mention
>Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions.
But that isn't clear on why.

[Anonymous No.9638668]

>>9638621
Gotta make the lander out of foil to save weight, but were gonna bring enough batteries to transmit video from the moon.

[Anonymous No.9638669]

>>9638232
Not a problem

[Anonymous No.9638678]

>>9638652

Great point, it looks real to me now. That was definitely the moon they landed on and livestreamed 240,000 miles away in 1969.

[Anonymous No.9638682]

>>9638643
Why would an attempt at faking footage of the moon get the size wrong? That seems like one of the few most basic pieces of information you'd make sure to get right if you were faking it.
This is what I don't understand with you conspiracy-fags. You always do this thing where you accuse the conspirators of pulling off the most ridiculously massive lies while simultaneously posting smugly about how obvious it is that they failed to succeed at taking care of the most basic of details in their execution of the lies.
At a bare minimum, if I'm going to seriously entertain the conspiracy / fake scenario then there better not be any obvious "mistakes" because that would be retarded.

[Anonymous No.9638686]

>>9638668
The film was taken by a 16mm camera.
https://transcription.si.edu/view/7925/NASM-A11Arev_Page_1
Non battery operated. Plus one which had a direct ac connection to power outlets in the command module via the communications umbilical.
The lunar lander had to have weight reductions but the cameras used did not due to it being part of the stowage lists. Further, Grumman decided to go with that specific layout as part of an overall "Lightest and cheapest" plan. The cameras were insignificant as compared to thermal shielding of the lunar landers descent stage.

[Anonymous No.9638702]

>>9638682

Because they can get away with it as there'll always be naive people like you willing to defend it.

[Anonymous No.9638705]

>>9638318
It should be noted that there are one or two shots in which a bright star or planet show up. But only the very brightest.

Interestingly, when they do, they are exactly where they are supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.9638708]

>>9638678
The 16mm film you see of the Lunar lander deploying the landing gears was not broadcast in real time. The film from the landing itself also was not broadcast. It wasn't until the initial EVA that they got slow scan video, and even then the image was poor by comparison of what could have been done.
Further, you can derive the speed that the craft were moving if you first figure out how long it took them to orbit the moon.
T=2π3(1.06r)34πGρr3−−−−−−−−√
T≈3.35Gρ−−−√
So low orbits around rocky bodies will be on the order of two hours, regardless of the size.

For Earth, ρ=5.51g/cm3, which gives a period of 92 minutes. For the Moon with ρ=3.34g/cm3, the period is 118 minutes. Mars' ρ=3.93g/cm3, giving 109 minutes. Tiny Ceres at ρ=2.08g/cm3 gives 150 minutes.

So, with that in mind, all you have to do is plug in the known radius of the moon, and then divide from there. In the video, if you take 5 seconds of footage, you can figure out too how fast they were moving.

Either way, you thus find that They were moving at about 23.9 miles a minute. or, for every second of footage, you are seeing a velocity of .399 miles a second.
Thus, when you say that the footage looks wrong, then you need to specify, if you mean it's moving too fast, well they were going 23.9 miles a minute or 1439.3 miles an hour at an altitude of 50,000 feet.

[Anonymous No.9638709]

>>9638668
All that foil was insulation you dolt. They had to insulate the fuel for the engine to prevent it either freezing or boiling off and they couldn't have bulkheads around it in order to save weight.

[Anonymous No.9638710]

>>9638525
They have, in this thread and elsewhere.

I could explain it to you, again. And again. I can't understand it for you.

[Anonymous No.9638713]

Actually I seriously screwed up. The velocity that they were going was actually 18.29 miles a minute for you non orbital guys. Not 23.9 miles a minute.

[Anonymous No.9638715]

>>9638710
This is me.

[Anonymous No.9638721]

>>9638668
The LM was a lightweight open framework. The foil "skin" was not structural, it was purely for temperature control to keep raw sunlight off fuel tanks and shit. It was not "load-bearing" at all.

[Anonymous No.9638724]

>>9638715
Well you aren't wrong. Though I imagine pic related.
The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film's emulsion. Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.
What you need to understand is how film reacts to radiation. That is to say, not terribly.
If it did, then we wouldn't have a single Nuclear explosion video since the areas where most of those cameras were faced significantly higher amounts of radiation than would be experienced on a journey from the earth to the moon.

[Anonymous No.9638738]

>>9638708

You can do all the formulas you want, it doesn't stop the footage from being fake as fuck.

Ignoring how obviously fake it all looks, just look at the speed change at 37secs to 44secs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_OD2V6fMLQ

[Anonymous No.9638747]

>>9638738
What of it?
Given that this is a narrated video with cuts that did not exist in the original footage, with segments taken out of context and presented at random, what makes you believe you are watching the full original 16mm hand cranked reel?

[Anonymous No.9638751]

>>9638747

What happened to the original footage by the way?

[Anonymous No.9638755]

>>9638751
Which original footage are you referring to? There are multiple original footage files you could be talking about. Are you talking about the telemetry data thought lost? Are you talking about the footage Neil took that his wife found? The SSTV footage from Australia that was originally recorded? The footage that was preserved at nasa? the 16mm footage you just said was fake but is preserved at the national archives?

[Anonymous No.9638756]

>>9638702
>Because they can get away with it as there'll always be naive people like you willing to defend it.
No, that doesn't make any sense at all. At absolute best all you can argue is that it's possible to get away with it in spite of making such massive and obvious mistakes. But that's a completely different thing from saying anyone orchestrating conspiracies of that scale would have a *motivation* to leave in obvious clues that they faked something.
They're not the fucking Riddler you idiot. If people deep in it enough to be willing to try fooling the entire world about something like the moon landing were really putting a lie like that together, the very least they would do is get shit like the size of the moon right.

[Anonymous No.9638794]

>>9638751
For your own sake I'll specify what happened to multiple different video files:
Original SSTV video was lost but direct ntsc conversion tapes were located.
Super 8 film was located of the same.
Telemetry data tapes were reused for later missions.
original 16mm film was preserved in the national archives.
Neil armstrongs personal video tapes and photos were discovered by his wife after his death.
The original NTSC post transmission from the moon, with receiver angle and conversion information (As good as raw) was later located and is now preserved.
Then there's image related. One of the few frames that survived from the original SSTV video itself.

[Anonymous No.9638799]

>>9638755

Oh I don't know, maybe: "The missing tapes were among over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program which have not been found."

Easily done I guess...

[Anonymous No.9638806]

>>9638756

I'm sure they'd have put more effort in if they knew the internet would exist in the future. There's a reason they haven't gone back and it's because it's too difficult to fake without being rumbled again.

[Anonymous No.9638807]

>>9638799
You're a bit slow responding since I already answered that for you.
I suggest going back to /pol/ now. As I just demonstrated, SSTV frames did survive and have thusly been preserved. Your claim of them not being found is a touch erroneous, which isn't surprising given the usual amount of...
due diligence I expect from the other board. Anyways, that answers the question and is ultimately meaningless.

Were you actually going somewhere with that claim? Or was that it? A statement of the obvious?

[Anonymous No.9638811]

>>9638799
Oh, right, and it helps to also research what's been going on behind the scenes concerning such efforts.
https://www.space.com/9211-lost-footage-moonwalk-screen-australia.html

[Anonymous No.9638819]

>>9638807

Competent enough to supposedly send people to the moon, but lost 700 of the original tapes. Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.9638829]

>>9638819
Well it IS a government agency. You reuse assets that were previously used rather than spend money to buy new ones.
I mean, let's face it, that's not exactly news.

[Anonymous No.9638843]

>>9638811

Where can we see this footage?

>>9638829

The greatest achievement of mankind and they recorded over the original tapes? Unbelievable, literally.

[Anonymous No.9638846]

>>9638819
And, hell, since we opened that box of worms, you are expressing astonishment-
Well no, you aren't. You're repeating a claim you think is a viable one, in order to insinuate that there is something unreasonable or unbelievable about the matter, but let's face it. You know full well that that kind of thing happens all the time. It's why we are still using 5 inch floppy disks for nuclear launches.

[Anonymous No.9638851]

>>9638843
>Unbelieveable literally.
Ah yes, the argument from incredulity. Next you'll tell me that it's unbelievable that they still use 5 inch floppies for nuclear missile launches. Therefore that doesn't happen.
Also, with the world at your finger tips, it's merely a google search away. I gave you your lead. I'm not about to spoon feed you. Especially since the burden of proof still rests on you to substantiate your claim.

[Anonymous No.9638860]

>>9638843
>The greatest achievement of mankind and they recorded over the original tapes?
There are a bunch of different recordings. Some of them were recorded over.

>Unbelievable, literally.
You're willing to believe in a massive conspiracy that spans both sides of the cold war yet can't get basic things like shadows or stars right, but you find short-sighted government bureaucracy unbelievable?

[Anonymous No.9638875]

>>9638846

Yes recording over the original tapes of the greatest achievement ever by man happens all the time and makes total sense because there was a shortage of magnetic tape.

>>9638851
>argument from incredulity

This fallacy allows you to posit absolute nonsense and you can just say it's not wrong, you just don't understand it.

> they still use 5 inch floppies for nuclear missile launches.

Have they lost any of the floppy disks or recorded over them? Sure they have, happens all the time doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.9638881]

>>9638875
>Have they lost any of the floppy disks or recorded over them?
It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

>argument from incredulity
>This fallacy allows you to posit absolute nonsense and you can just say it's not wrong, you just don't understand it.
If you want to claim something is wrong, you actually need to be able to provide reasons WHY.

Do you hoaxers have ANY argument better than pointing at every part of the Apollo program an announcing "well I don't believe it!". Because that's getting boring really fast.

[Anonymous No.9638883]

>>9638875
Again, are you positing that these things don't happen? If so, I'm certain you have some substantiation.
Correct?

As a matter of fact though, they did in fact re-purpose disks as the coordinate systems and other complex calculation routines were no longer needed. So yes, those 8 inch floppy disks were, in fact, re-purposed.

So I ask again: Are you actually going somewhere with this nonsense?

[Anonymous No.9638898]

>>9638843
>The greatest achievement of mankind and they recorded over the original tapes?
Gee, wait till you find out about the rabbit hole of lost BBC tapes/original broadcasts.

[Anonymous No.9638900]

>>9638625
>why didn't the Soviets use it to document the disaster
>why didn't the Soviets accurately document their colossal fuck up
Couldn't tell you.

[Anonymous No.9638908]

>>9638898
Back when I still liked Dr. Who, that was always a fun rabbit hole to go down. Especially when people began reenacting the scenes in order to piece together the gaps in the footage.

[Anonymous No.9638909]

>>9638860

>You're willing to believe in a massive conspiracy that spans both sides of the cold war yet can't get basic things like shadows or stars right, but you find short-sighted government bureaucracy unbelievable?

It wasn't an accidental mistake is my claim. It was done to cover it up because better quality footage is easier to spot fakery.

>>9638881

They did it to regain the population's trust again after the JFK assassination and the ongoing Vietnam war, they needed to boost patriotism by beating the Russians at something monumental.

[Anonymous No.9638917]

>>9638909
>It wasn't an accidental mistake is my claim. It was done to cover it up because better quality footage is easier to spot fakery.
Nice claim. What evidenced do you have for it?

>They did it to regain the population's trust again after the JFK assassination and the ongoing Vietnam war, they needed to boost patriotism by beating the Russians at something monumental.
Yes, that's pretty widely known. So what?

[Anonymous No.9638921]

>>9638351
It wasn't night, the surface of the moon was lit, and it was said to be a tremendously bright daylight.

The sky was black because there was no atmosphere to interact with the incoming light and produce the blue you associate with a day sky.

You'll notice on earth on a perfectly clear day, you don't really see any stars either, do you? The difference in brightness between the well lit moon surface and the stars is totally the reason you don't see any stars in the photos.

[Anonymous No.9638931]

>>9638909
>better quality footage is easier to spot fakery
Ah so you've essentially returned to your original claim. That it was fake.
So let's recap:
Video footage taken on the moon then wasn't faked, as your claim was put to the wringer.
The footage from that 16mm video wasn't fake as the speed they were moving (18.23 miles a minute) combined with the height (50,000 feet) produce those same effects, and you've failed to substantiate how a moon landing is not the best explanation.
Examples such as nuclear explosions and footage of the elephants foot also demonstrates the problems with the space radiation claim.

So I guess I'll put it to you simply:
Provide one piece of evidence which can only be explained by "Fakery"
It's near midnight. I have to sit a console tomorrow, so hurry it up.

[Anonymous No.9638936]

>>9638921
A more accurate comparison would be a football field on a friday night. With full lights blazing, thus lighting up the field. Take a picture, there are no stars. This is because of light, a lack of atmosphere and the exposure on the camera.

[Anonymous No.9638941]

>>9638917
>Nice claim. What evidenced do you have for it?

They "lost" the original, high quality tapes. The worst detective in the world would have a problem with that.

>Yes, that's pretty widely known. So what?

That's why they faked it, it was (and is) physically impossible to do it for real.

[Anonymous No.9638947]

>>9638941
>It's physically impossible to do it for real.

You've yet to substantiate how it's physically impossible.

[Anonymous No.9638950]

>>9638941
>They "lost" the original, high quality tapes. The worst detective in the world would have a problem with that.
So you don't have any evidence to support your claim at all.

>That's why they faked it, it was (and is) physically impossible to do it for real.
Yet more unsupported claims.

[Flight No.9638955]

Oh. Midnight.
The peep, etc thing is over.
Names are back.

[Anonymous No.9638958]

>>9638947
>>9638950

Rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum for a start. There's no external medium for an equal and opposite pushing reaction to occur.

[Flight No.9638962]

>>9638958
That's....
That's not how it works at all!
You can actually test this claim to see how it's wrong.
Pic related. This is how the laws of motion work....
And yes, I'm breaking this down dummy style for you.

[Anonymous No.9638965]

>>9638958
>Rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum
You don't even understand school-level physics, but you think people are going to just take your word for it that there wasn't a Moon landing?

[Flight No.9638967]

Here's another example.
Let's break it down dummy style:
Mass exists within tank. It gets sped up and pushed into reaction chamber. The gas (Let's go with a simple one, hydrogen and oxygen) React and combine to form water. In the process heat is produced as well, causing the gas to expand, it's pushed out the back, force goes out the back, as a result a force is applied on the rocket pushing it forward.
It's not exactly...

Oh wait. It is.

[Flight No.9638971]

>>9638965
We are the unfortunate witnesses to the full Dunning Kruger effect here...

[Anonymous No.9638975]

>>9638962

Doesn't apply in a vacuum. Show me a video of a rocket flying in a large vacuum chamber. Every one I've seen pushes off the side of the chamber before it moves

[Flight No.9638981]

>>9638975
Done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxBRQXxBRic

That was almost disturbingly easy.
>Rocket held in the center of the tube.
>The force it produces causes it to move dramatically forward.
That brainlet thing really does apply to you doesn't it?

[Flight No.9638989]

And my god, I keep finding videos which meet your exact specifications:
>Not against a wall.
>Video related is actually in a chamber and they are spinning around each other because they are angled 180 degrees opposite and thus produce enough force to cause it to go spinning.
>Held in the center of the tube or chamber.
>Produces the precise results one would expect to see based on application of the scientific method of testing the claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4

[Anonymous No.9638992]

>>9638981

Notice how it doesn't move until the gas hits the side of the container? You're going to have to do better than that.

[Anonymous No.9639001]

>>9638975
>Doesn't apply in a vacuum.
Yes it does. Again, learn how Newtonian physics actually works.

>Show me a video of a rocket flying in a large vacuum chamber. Every one I've seen pushes off the side of the chamber before it moves
Here's one that's actually slightly clearer than >>9638981's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug

[Flight No.9639011]

>>9638992
....Do you think about what you said? Watch it in slow motion again.
It began producing thrust the instant that the reaction began.
Further, think about what you just said.
It only produced thrust when the expelled exhaust, no longer connected to the rocket, touched the side.
That would only make sense if the rocket were directly against the side of the tube. As you can see in that video, it's literally impossible for the gas to push back from the wall and onto the rocket since it would have been blown backwards by all the exhaust gasses being expelled out the back.
By your own logic, the test proves you wrong.

[Anonymous No.9639012]

>>9638989
>>9639001

Again, they only move when the gas hits the side of the container, whereby the gas bounces off in the opposite direction to move the object. The vacuum of space offers no such thing.

[Anonymous No.9639015]

>>9638958
>Rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum for a start. There's no external medium for an equal and opposite pushing reaction to occur.
>There's no external medium for an equal and opposite pushing reaction to occur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs

[Anonymous No.9639018]

>>9639012
>Again, they only move when the gas hits the side of the container
Nope, actually watch the video I posted. The can starts moving BEFORE the propellant hits the wall.

[Flight No.9639021]

>>9639012
Again, based upon your own standard that's impossible since the gasses are unable to push back on the rocket due to them having to overcome the force of the exhaust.

You actually have no idea about basic physics do you?

[Anonymous No.9639031]

>>9639015
god damn you're fucking stupid

it is about the mass and velocity of the fuel LEAVING that produces the thrust, not it pushing off of a medium.

[Anonymous No.9639032]

>>9639018

No it doesn't.

[Flight No.9639033]

>>9639015
I didn't know Aerotech was still in business. When I was a kid I got one of their initiator kits and launched a number of rockets using their motors. Nice to see they're still around. Might have to pick up a kit for shits and giggles. My old set is long lost to time.

[Flight No.9639037]

>>9639032
You can see the thrust being produced on the wires in that video precisely as the exhaust leaves the nozzle. Well before the exhaust plume makes it to the end of the container. You can also see that it is producing thrust before it hits the upper and lower sides.
>>9639031
That particular anon was expressing their dismay at that anons stupidity.

[Anonymous No.9639039]

>>9639015

Again, only moves because the gas is pushing off the solid container. Show a rocket working in a large container where it can't push off the solid walls constantly.

[Anonymous No.9639041]

>>9639032
The video with the can is much clearer.

If you watch closely, the gif you just posted also shows the motor being pushed forward immediately as well.

>>9639039
>Again, only moves because the gas is pushing off the solid container.
No it doesn't. Watch the videos that have already been posted.

[Anonymous No.9639044]

>>9638738
>has no comparison
>talking out of their ass
>millennial
so much bait.

[Anonymous No.9639046]

>>9639037

You call that thrust? Why is it barely moving in the opposite direction to this "thrust"?

[Flight No.9639048]

I'm going to use an argument from incredulity to shape a theory for a moment. I apologize but it must be done.

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that someone could continue to make the claim despite being shown how he is incorrect. I find it difficult to believe based upon the amount of data provided that meets his very exact requirements, that this anon isn't just trolling.

[Flight No.9639049]

>>9639046
Is it moving in the opposite direction or is it not moving? The small motors don't exactly put out a lot of thrust. They're toy rocket motors for crying out loud.

[Anonymous No.9639050]

>>9639046
>Why is it barely moving in the opposite direction to this "thrust"?
Because the spread of combustion isn't instant, so the rocket takes time to reach full thrust.

[Anonymous No.9639053]

>>9639046
>>9639049
>>9639050

Oh look, it only actually starts moving when the gas has rebounded off the side and comes back to hit the rocket. Are you blind?

[Anonymous No.9639057]

>>9638411
Notice the command and control, as he called out for systems ready one after the other, there wasn't some fuckhead alseep but each time every man had an answer instantly ?
Today, we don't have a group of people like that. We have shitheads, atheists, faggots, money baggers, turd lickers, criminals, slackers, all sorts of disgruntled pieces of shit, and they demand spots and jobs, and often literally can't be fired.

There's why we don't go to the moon anymore.

[Flight No.9639060]

>>9639053
No, it started moving in the original gif you showed. It did not produce enough thrust due to the spread of combustion not being instant. You are evaluating amount of thrust which is a different animal entirely. Further, you are confusing correlation and causation. As your own gif shows from your other post, movement happens well before the exhaust plume is able to make contact with the side of the tube.

[Anonymous No.9639061]

>>9638958
JFC, I really hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.9639073]

>>9639060

Do you not see the first clouds of gas hitting the bottom of the container and rebounding back to the rocket? After that it doesn't move at all until the rest of the gas rebounds off the further end of the chamber.

[Anonymous No.9639076]

>>9639039
>Again, only moves because the gas is pushing off the solid container.
How? If the gas hits the container how is THAT FORCE transferred to the rocket?

[Flight No.9639077]

>>9639061
It terrifies me to think that this is actually a well meaning person who is simply clueless about basic science, but has seen enough garbage on youtube that he is convinced that it's actually us who misunderstand basic science.

[Anonymous No.9639078]

>>9639053
Troll anon, I suppose you have a rolling chair and a smooth surface you can place your lard on. I assume you do not possess a medicine ball, being a neckbeard troll, but imagine the following scenario. You sit in the rolling chair on the smooth surface holding the medicine ball to you moons. You somehow muster the testicular fortitude to actually propel the medicine ball from your grease stained chest to hit the wall across the room and you roll backwards, away from the ball's trajectory. Do you roll when the ball hits the wall?

[Anonymous No.9639080]

>>9638843
>The greatest achievement of mankind and they recorded over the original tapes? Unbelievable, literally.

Of course it is, that's just the excuse- all the big shot assholes stole em

[Anonymous No.9639083]

>>9639057

Wasn't scripted at all...

[Flight No.9639091]

>>9639073
In the original gif, you can see the exhaust plume impact the bottom of the tube but not rebound up as you allege. Instead, it is channeled in a vorticity flow backwards with an eddy apparent near the surface. Which still leaves the equation empty in that how is the exhaust impacting the rocket and causing motion? You've failed to account for this most basic error which has been pointed out to you before.
So, since you have still been unable to demonstrate even THAT, then your claim has been soundly debunked.
With that, I'm done for the night. I seriously hope you're just trolling. But I get the feeling that you actually believe the garbage you are spouting.

[Anonymous No.9639095]

>>9639078

False analogy, the medicine ball has weight to push off of. We're talking about gas pushing off a vacuum which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.9639097]

>>9639073
>Do you not see the first clouds of gas hitting the bottom of the container and rebounding back to the rocket?
Watch carefully - the rocket moves before then.

>>9639053
Again, it's clearer in the other video with the can, because the onset of thrust is faster. In every case though, thrust comes from the acceleration of the propellant, not the interaction of the propellant with something else.
Consider firing a gun - do you experience recoil immediately, or after the bullet hits something?

>>9639083
>Why does a carefully planned and rehearsed event sound like it was carefully planned and rehearsed?

>>9639095
>the medicine ball has weight to push off of. We're talking about gas
Do you thing gasses have no weight?

[Anonymous No.9639099]

>>9639077
These moon-conspiracy nutjobs are probably american desu.

[Anonymous No.9639110]

>>9639091
>how is the exhaust impacting the rocket and causing motion?

Is it not obvious? How does wind work? Notice how the rocket goes backwards too? It's okay to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.9639111]

>>9639110
>Notice how the rocket goes backwards too?
Let's add "springs" to the list of things you clearly don't understand.

[Anonymous No.9639112]

>>9639099
that mentality is on the rise about everything


you know our solar system is actually binary right?

[Anonymous No.9639114]

>>9638958
>Rockets cannot produce thrust in a vacuum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton's_third_law
Back to kindergarten, fool

[Anonymous No.9639116]

Everyone here is arguing stupid fucking things... you do realise if you have a good enough telescope, you can actually see footprints, the flag etc on the moon from earth...

[Anonymous No.9639120]

>>9639116
>you do realise if you have a good enough telescope, you can actually see footprints, the flag etc on the moon from earth...
No you can't. They're far too small to be resolvable with any telescope we have.

[Anonymous No.9639121]

>>9639078
well that just busted the tard in the balls so hard he's bawling
/case closed

[Anonymous No.9639122]

These threads just go to show how many people in /sci/ actually have no idea about science and maths.

Really makes you think....

[Anonymous No.9639123]

it's obvious by this point that this guy is a troll. stop feeding it.

[Anonymous No.9639126]

>>9639116
Stop false flagging.

[Anonymous No.9639131]

>>9638958
>It's this retard again

[Anonymous No.9639137]

>>9639099
Just think what would happen today - out of 1000 employees at Nasa to go to the moon again, we'd have 300-400 no moon and flat earth nut jobs that would be hired....

When they are supposed to be doing something for the safety and success of the mission, they will pull some shit like planning for a dome strike or calculating gravity as density of the various objects instead...

It would be a total fucking disaster...
command and control: Engines!
go!
Telemetry
go !
Fuel
Fuel ?
Fuel !
oh..uh.. um... this stuff is dangerous why are we doing this ?!

LMAO - exactly what would happen

[Anonymous No.9639140]

>>9639097

Why can't you show rockets or cans exploding in a large vacuum so that the walls of the chamber can be discounted? That's what science is about, right? If this is the best you have then science is in serious trouble.

>Do you thing gasses have no weight?

A vacuum doesn't.

[Anonymous No.9639145]

>>9639140
>Why can't you show rockets or cans exploding in a large vacuum so that the walls of the chamber can be discounted?
Would would be the point of paying for that? Newtonian mechanics can be demonstrated in far easier ways.

>That's what science is about, right?
No.

>A vacuum doesn't.
Rockets don't push off the vacuum, they push off their propellant.

[Flight No.9639146]

>>9639140
The walls of the chamber in the tests shown are sufficiently large enough to be discounted. You've failed to describe the interaction within the chamber with anything approaching an accurate observation.

[Anonymous No.9639165]

>>9639145
>Would would be the point of paying for that? Newtonian mechanics can be demonstrated in far easier ways.

So the astronauts who went to the moon didn't need to practice flying a space craft in a vacuum, they managed to do it perfectly first try? You really will believe anything.

>Rockets don't push off the vacuum, they push off their propellant.

And the propellant is pushing off what exactly? The chain of equal and opposite reactions is broken in a vacuum, it cannot work like that.

>>9639146
>The walls of the chamber in the tests shown are sufficiently large enough to be discounted.

Absolute nonsense. The gases clearly effect the rocket as they come back in the opposite direction.

[Anonymous No.9639168]

>>9638232
>>9638236
>>9638247
>>9638257
>>9638261
I know anon, it's a weird feeling every time I think about it. Human beings put footprints on another world and came back alive from the journey.

The Moon has always fascinated me, it hangs there in the sky like some impossible silver jewel lighting up the night. Everything around us changes yet the Moon remains the same.

[Flight No.9639170]

>>9639165
We've demonstrated that they do not interact with the rocket after coming into contact with the walls. Further, even if they did, the force of interaction would be much less than the force required to enact movement.

Next claim.

[Anonymous No.9639172]

>>9639168
chill bro its just the moon its not that impressive desu

[Anonymous No.9639178]

>>9639170
>We've demonstrated that they do not interact with the rocket after coming into contact with the walls.

You must be watching something else because it's clear that as soon as the bulk of the gas hits the rocket, it begins to actually move in the opposite direction noticeably.

If the vacuum was big enough that the gas wouldn't hit anything solid, no thrust would occur.

[Flight No.9639180]

>>9639172
Worth a read.
http://www.thewhitereview.org/feature/for-all-mankind-a-brief-cultural-history-of-the-moon/

[Flight No.9639182]

>>9639178
We've already shown that very little to zero interaction between the gas and the rocket post wall hitting happens.
Next claim.

[Anonymous No.9639186]

>>9639165
>So the astronauts who went to the moon didn't need to practice flying a space craft in a vacuum, they managed to do it perfectly first try?
How are you this astoundingly bad at research? The Apollo astronauts trained by carrying out less ambitious missions (such as Gemini), and in simulations.
How would putting a vehicle in a vacuum chamber even help with training? The chamber would be far too small to travel at speeds where air resistance would matter, and due to gravity you still couldn't replicate the actual behaviour of a spacecraft in freefall.

>And the propellant is pushing off what exactly?
The rocket. That's what the whole "equal and opposite reaction" thing MEANS.

>>9639178
I've already posted it once, but watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8MOoUuLnug
Thrust occurs BEFORE the propellant hits the wall.

[Flight No.9639198]

>>9639186
By this anons logic, there are no satellites in the sky, there never was a manned mission to space by either the Russians or Americans, nor do the current countries with both public and private space companies go to space using rockets.
Further, according to this anon, we cannot fly in the stratosphere nor do sounding rockets exist.
I suspect he thinks nuclear explosions can't happen either.

In short, and it pains me greatly to say this, he is a true idiot.
What's worse, is he's an idiot who smugly knows himself to be correct. All the while failing to realize he is entirely incorrect.

[Anonymous No.9639208]

>>9639186
And they managed these perfectly fine without any prior practice, as I said, you'll believe anything.

>The rocket. That's what the whole "equal and opposite reaction" thing MEANS.

The rocket is pushing off the gas, and the gas is pushing off the rocket. That doesn't work. The gas must also be pushing off something external to itself in order for it to push on the rocket with an equal and opposite reaction. You cannot isolate these forces to just the rocket and gas, they require something external to themselves (atmosphere, wall of a chamber) to produce thrust.

>Thrust occurs BEFORE the propellant hits the wall.

Impossible to see without a slow motion camera, but the can is very close to the wall of the chamber (surprise, surprise).

[Anonymous No.9639217]

>>9639198
>no satellites in the sky

They're on weather balloons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvP5VK96KTk

[Anonymous No.9639222]

>>9639217
Wait...
"Project loom"
Where have I heard that...
It's a network of high altitude balloons designed to bring 4G-LTE internet to remote areas. The balloons are designed to stay in the air for months, or even years, before landing for servicing. The descent of the balloon is controlled to a large degree, as the balloons can be raised or lowered to catch wind currents much like a hot-air-balloon does. The Loon balloons use helium with a system of "ballonets" that can be used to adjust the density.
20 seconds.
That's all it took to find out where that was from. Weather Balloon Brazil. Hell Satellite balloon brazil landed the precise same result:
A project loom balloon crashed in Brazil. You can see project looms if lost paper in the video.

Oh my fucking god you believe everything someone posts on the internet don't you?

[Anonymous No.9639225]

>>9639208
>And they managed these perfectly fine without any prior practice
They had shitloads of training and experience.

>The rocket is pushing off the gas, and the gas is pushing off the rocket. That doesn't work.
THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" MEANS

>The gas must also be pushing off something external to itself in order for it to push on the rocket with an equal and opposite reaction. You cannot isolate these forces to just the rocket and gas
Of course you can. Learn some basic fucking physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

>>9639208
>Impossible to see without a slow motion camera
It's perfectly visible. The can has moved significantly backwards before the escaping liquid has reached the wall.

>>9639217
>They're on weather balloons
No they are not. Balloons move with the wind.
And why do you think that video demonstrates anything?

[Anonymous No.9639226]

>>9639208
Watch that anons video. His slow motion camera that he used showed exactly that.

Go back to /pol/.

[Flight No.9639229]

Pic related is how Iridium satellites move. As you can see, their motion is impossible on earth. Why?
Winds.
I'm convinced this anon actually has a learning disability. Either that or he has no ability to think critically.

[Anonymous No.9639231]

>>9639178
>You must be watching something else because it's clear that as soon as the bulk of the gas hits the rocket
You might want to go back and look at how long the chambers are in some of the tests and how quickly force is generated by the motor (hint: you're an idiot).

[Anonymous No.9639235]

>>9639208
>Impossible to see without a slow motion camera
Need I direct you to >>9639015 again?
The start of the video shows how long the chamber is and slow motion footage starts at 10:20 after some failed attempts (yes, it appears that black powder doesn't ignite very well in a vacuum, black powder also isn't a common rocket fuel for space flights).

[Anonymous No.9639240]

>>9639229
>I'm convinced this anon actually has a learning disability.
>Either that or he has no ability to think critically.
>Describing 95% of sci

[Anonymous No.9639247]

>>9639168
I know right? Man I love the moon.

Here's a great video on it for you!

https://youtu.be/DaDeiBRifm8?t=11

[Flight No.9639251]

>>9639247
>Spirit science.
Oh fuck me not this guy again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDx1Kh2iU6o

[Anonymous No.9639258]

>>9639247
>Science can't explain the Moon.
Oh wow.

[Anonymous No.9639285]

>>9639247
I unironically enjoy his videos.

They're the spewings of a diseased mind, but entertaining nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.9639313]

>>9638232
>>9639168
>>9639247
I dunno about that shit but I I'm legit in love with the Moon. Like, I want to please her so she will let me see her unknown mystery. Explore her hidden valleys. Climb her highest mountains. Every time I look at the Moon I'm looking at the object of my heart's desire.

Is this normal?

[Anonymous No.9639342]

>>9638232
You fucking wish NASA shill.

[Anonymous No.9639363]

>>9638232
mfw american government is so corrupt citizens can not even be sure about something historically gamchanging like landing on the moon

[Anonymous No.9639386]

>>9639342
>>9639363
And the cycle of stupidity begins again.

[Anonymous No.9639527]

>>9639111
Hahaha

[Anonymous No.9639621]

>>9639386
I'm calling it the circle of /pol/

[Anonymous No.9639624]

And we haven't left LEO in 50 years.

[Anonymous No.9639639]

>>9639624
It's a real shame. A permanent Moon base would have a huge list of scientific applications.

[Anonymous No.9639692]

>>9639624
So?
Here's something. Did you know the first manned descent into the Mariana Trench was in 1960 and it was only until 2012 that a second manned descent was made?
That's 52 years! And it's on Earth! Why haven't we been down to the bottom of the Mariana Trench more?

There's good reasons why we haven't been out of LEO since Apollo. It's expensive. For a long time the public didn't really back such an expensive program. We have been doing a lot in LEO with space stations and satellites. Our probe technology has improved so that we can send probes to planets we couldn't hope to send people to visit in reasonable time frames. The Saturn V was designed especially for the capability of Moon landing and that capability was not needed for LEO so much smaller rockets were designed since then. The tech in the Saturn V is so old it isn't a simple case of just building it again to go to the Moon again, it would be an entirely new vehicle which means development time and costs.

During the space race pretty much all of NASA's funding was going into that program, leading to the Moon. Now, adjusted, NASA's budget is much smaller than it was then and they have a lot of other programs. Going to the Moon is not really something they can budget to do within one presidency.

[Anonymous No.9639696]

>>9639692
>We should only do something if it makes rich people more money
This is why we are doomed to stagnation.

[Anonymous No.9639698]

>>9639692
That brings up the unfortunate political side of things.
Each president since Reagan has had his own idea of what the manned space program should do. So every 4 to 8 years, NASA abandons one mission to do another, redeveloping and researching tools and techniques to accomplish that new goal. So it essentially winds up spinning its wheels all day while accomplishing nothing.

[Anonymous No.9639723]

>>9639696
I'm not saying that at all. How the fuck did you read that into it?

[Anonymous No.9639735]

>>9638232
>we went to the fucking moon
>04/01/18
Ha ha.

[Anonymous No.9639924]

>>9639226
stop pinning absolutely every retard you don't like on /pol/
jesus christ we don't like those dumbasses either, stop giving us more of them

[Anonymous No.9640177]

this is the reality. they went into earth orbit and faked going to the moon from there. fucking brainlets literally believe anything because "muh based jew sagan weed dude space lmao civic nat and transhumanist global gubbernment" get a grip you cucks.

t.your daddy /pol/

[Anonymous No.9640190]

9640177
>false flagging this fucking hard

[Anonymous No.9640239]

>>9640190
heh pussy faggot scientists are lost in their groupthink BS and try to make excuses for every little thing, its because they have sol penis and have to make u think they have special magic abillities to justify their paychecks so they can pay for their horrible wives sons. cuk brainlet cowards.

[Anonymous No.9640251]

notice how these cuks have an emotional attachment to the myth, like if it was fake they would look like little bitches for believing the lies. this is why they resist. "muh USA USA we d spacemens nd special priests of modernity, plz no question ok thank you"

[Anonymous No.9640279]

>>9638525
radiation hardened film and cameras, stuff russia had to steal from american spy satellite canisters they retrieved, because they needed that technology to start their own unmanned moon program.

[Anonymous No.9640281]

[Anonymous No.9640285]

>>9638625
they did not have the film, its that easy. the little they had they shot into space, russia could not replicate the technology

[Anonymous No.9640292]

No plane can pass through the van halen belts because RADIATION will fry both people and computers!

Get it through your thick skulls.

[Anonymous No.9640301]

>no nebulae gas clouds
>no asteroid belt rivers
>no cool spacey sounds
Fake.

[Anonymous No.9640788]

>>9640239
Several organizations around the world verified them going to the Moon, at the least, by measuring transmission attenuation because the communications could be listened to by anyone with a big enough antenna.

>>9640251
I'm not even from a country with a space program. It seems to me it is mostly Americans who deny the Moon landings.

[Anonymous No.9640894]

>>9640292
Tin foil will protect you

[Anonymous No.9640937]

>>9638756
> They're not the fucking Riddler you idiot
I laughed

[Anonymous No.9640964]

>>9638318
even far away planets are so bright that exposing for it and exposing for stars are mutually exclusive. this is a picture i took myself

[Anonymous No.9640969]

>>9638592
it was used for training.

[Anonymous No.9641020]

flat earther clubs now require flat earths to "flat ass moon" ... beware it's spreading, you could be driving down the highway or wherever and next thing you know some flat mooner ass attacks in the neighboring vehicle window
they are saying "here have a couple of half globes!" sometimes with other vulgarities mixed in, that way you know it's them

[Anonymous No.9641149]

>>9638958
>/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9641466]

How did they know there was no air in space

How did they know there was no air on the moon

You only need a scuba suit when you're underwater

[Anonymous No.9641488]

>>9638682
i wouldnt call the cheese ball effects from 1969 conspiracy, more like dummies who have no concept of hollywoods integration into the news system still believe everything the news says. but nice try senator grand secretary for the not very noble arch scientist of the 3rd cross poobah fellows of unusual delusion

[Anonymous No.9641883]

>>9638257

[Anonymous No.9641885]

>>9641883

[Anonymous No.9641889]

>>9641885
Fucking,
In the fullest sense of the word,
AWESOME

[Anonymous No.9641896]

>>9641883
I actually love the way the flames start where they do, well below the engine bell.
If I remember correctly it has something to do with the mixture they were burning, it was fuel rich, I think, so some of what was being expelled from the bell hadn't burned so it ignited below the bell.

[Anonymous No.9642373]

>>9641020
upboated

[Anonymous No.9642377]

This thread has delivered much good keks and humor. Bls continue.

[Anonymous No.9642385]

>>9639313
No, not really, but it's less weird than tile patterns at least.

[Anonymous No.9642401]

ok ill go first. Mr Crowley, hubbard stole my yacht

[Anonymous No.9642424]

Can't believe there are still mooncucks in 2018 who have fallen for 1969 propaganda. Absolutely unreal.

[Anonymous No.9642479]

>>9638625
They couldn't exactly run down to the nearest Soviet-Mart and be back in time to document. And who keeps that kind of high octane equipment in the back of their kremlinvan?

[Anonymous No.9642486]

>>9638232
>we went to the fucking moon
And what a waste of time it was.

[Anonymous No.9642491]

>>9638625
>Why didn't the least-trustworthy people in history document their biggest fuck-up?
We'll never know.

[Anonymous No.9642495]

>>9638958
I can tell you're genuinely confused so imagine you're floating in space and you throw your shoe. The shoe will hurtle one way and you slowly drift the other (nothing holding you in that spot is there?)
Now imagine if you shot it out of a grenade launcher.
Now imagine if you shot burning fuel out the back of a thruster.

[Anonymous No.9642504]

>>9642495
>thinks gas is strong enough to push a rocket in the vacuum of space without pushing off anything itself

[Anonymous No.9642614]

>>9642401
kek

[Anonymous No.9642647]

FUCK SPACE
SAVE THE HUMAN RACE

[Anonymous No.9643817]

>>9638525
>getting better at faking it

or getting better at getting the fucking footage??

my god, people

[Anonymous No.9645494]

>>9641488
What the fuck did I just read?

[Anonymous No.9645501]

>>9642504
Too obvious, please troll more gently.

[Anonymous No.9645563]

How could any real scientist question NASA's beautiful and REALISTIC imagery? Pic damn well related. Moon hoaxers and flat earthers BTFO, you're welcome, now leave science to the adults please or go play Kerbal Space Program and learn something (WARNING: Requires a mature brain). Maybe you still have the chance to evolve into an adult, we're all waiting.

[Anonymous No.9645622]

YES WE WENT TO THE FUCKING MOON HOW COULD YOU FUCKING QUESTION THAT!!??

Seriously, being a moronic science denier should be ILLEGAL.

LOOK AT PIC RELATED. THEY SENT A ROVER ON MARS. IT'S ORANGE. What more damn proof do you need?

I've seen complete brain dead idiots asking what took that photo because the camera doesn't "look like" it's being held by the rover. I mean who fucking cares what it "looks like"!? It's probably just a glitch in the 50 million mile transmission, just enjoy the beauty of Mars and don't focus on silly little details like that. THANKS.

[Anonymous No.9645841]

>>9639122
It just shows only thing that people visit this site for - (you)s for low quality baits.

[Anonymous No.9646214]

>>9645563
Stop false flagging.

[Anonymous No.9646908]

>>9645622
I really, really hope you are not this retarded.

[Anonymous No.9647332]

>>9645622
It's a composite image. They took several images at slightly different angles and stitched them together. They had to do it that way or the rover arm would be obscuring half the shot.

[Anonymous No.9647397]

>>9638232
We walked around up there.

[Anonymous No.9647401]

[Anonymous No.9648298]

Even China went to the moon (pic related). What more proof do you need?

[Anonymous No.9648334]

Nixon was on landline to the astronauts while they were on the moon. It was real folks.

[Anonymous No.9649032]

>>9638708
>So low orbits around rocky bodies will be on the order of two hours, regardless of the size.

This is cool.

[Anonymous No.9649038]

>>9638941
>The worst detective in the world would have a problem with that.

This is such a boomer comment. I can just picture you with your hush puppies sneakers and bifocals, leaving this comment on a youtube video.

[Anonymous No.9649539]

>>9638429
yeah and almost 60 years after that we still haven't left LEO.

[Anonymous No.9649564]

>>9649539
Don't make me bring up the Mariana Trench again.

[Anonymous No.9649823]

>>9649564
If you do, can I bring up the Darrien Gap? /trv/ would love that, it's their only meme.

[Anonymous No.9649952]

>>9649823
If you can tell me how it relates.

I bring up the Mariana Trench because people first descended it in 1960 and then there were no other attempts until 2012. 52 years unexplored by people while being on our planet. The argument that because people haven't left LEO in 50+ years means we didn't go to the Moon doesn't hold up when you consider that.
It's not proof that people did go to the Moon, but that argument is flawed.

[Anonymous No.9650221]

>>9638625
>mmmmmmmmrrr.. h-... huuuuuurrrr why gommie no say "cheese"???
>mmmmbbppppttttllllbbbbbbpblblbblblblbbbbbppt

[Anonymous No.9650233]

>>9638411
looks real to me, chief
except that weird watermark in the upper right
that might be photoshopped, but i'm not too sure

[Anonymous No.9650319]

These guys didn't
>>>/biz/

[Anonymous No.9650423]

>>9638232
>we went
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.9650439]

>>9650233

Star trek is real too by the way.

[Anonymous No.9650505]

>>9639077
Why should that terrify you?