can anyone convince me that the moon landing was real? i dont

>>8272069
>the one thing that 100% convinced me that its fake, is the lack of stars
The moon is a hell of a lot brighter than the stars

>>8272078
thats not what NASA said. they said it was because of the low quality film.
even footage from the spacecraft shows stars.

>>8272078
i can even see a few Bright stars during the day here on Earth.
is the moon as Bright as we see it from Earth, or as Bright as in the NASA Pictures? because thats 2 way different brightnesses

>>8272069
Everybody knows it was fake you fucking idiot we don't just not go to the moon anymore for no reason

>>8272085
You are probably misreading nasa statements. We cant see stars in moon photos because the exposure is just enough to clearly see the moon and too low for the stars

>>8272091
You can see them, but good luck getting a camera to photograph a well lit landscape and the stars in the same shot

>>8272085
It's because they weren't exposing for stars you fucking moron.

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

>>8272069
>the one thing that 100% convinced me that its fake, is the lack of stars.

So because you have absolutely no understanding of shutter speed and exposure, you believe the moon landing was faked?

Gotcha.

>>8272114
they dont have the Tech now to make it through the radiation belt and back. its too Dangerous for the ppl inside and the Equipment.
check it out. they are still working on that.

the astronauts are glowing more than the moon, the suits are not made of the same type of reflective material as the moon is made of.
and please explain how Pictures and video of Space from inside the Shuttle is lacking stars?
i never question any light Sources or anything like that.

i like how he thinks nasa Equipment is Equal to normal People Equipment.
"in 1969 there were no high speed video cameras".
he even talks about what Equipment some People had.
sure, if anyone was faking a moonlanding, they would as the neighborhood film geek to make it With his Equipment lol.

i think a Budget of 30 mill in -69 Money can Challenge creativity a little better than this guy.

and he talks about commercially available Equipment like all the time.
ye, With that Budget, and the Cold war at stake, i bet they would buy some stuff at the local Tech store.

but he brushes that "small fact" off With ease.

im commenting as i watch, and this guy only talks about his own experiences With commercially available Equipment.
this video is a joke.

>>8272184

To add to this, if you were a bit more intelligent, you would perhaps reason that the lack of stars is actually evidence for the authenticity of the moon landing.

Think about it - if this were a hoax, you'd think that the government would have the best minds in the world working on it... yet they forgot to add the stars into the backdrop of the sound-stage.

Are you starting to realize how stupid you sound?

>>8272184
tell me how they didnt get any stars from high res pics of Space from inside the Shuttle. from inside the Shuttle.

>>8272201
>they dont have the Tech now to make it through the radiation belt and back
You are correct, which is why they went over it

>>8272201
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html

>>8272205
Source. Also resolution has nothing to do with it

>>8272205
Because they weren't exposing for the stars. Photographic resolution quality and light exposure are two completely different things. That's literally the explanation. Congratulations. You're dumber than Joe Rogan.

>>8272204
wow. you must be retarded.
the lack of stars isnt a mistake.
the positioning of the stars would have to be so pricise that it could easily expose them.
its one of the oldest guidance systems in the history of mankind.

it would be too risky and time consuming to map it into perfection.
and With all the trips to the moon, With pics beeing taken all the way to the moon, and not only ON the moon, its strange that we dont see stars.

its not a mistake as they can say it was the low quality and exposure, but not to this degree.

>>8272212
from the Picture in low light far away from the moon, they ere exposing for it. still no stars.
you must be a special kind of retard.
still believe in santa?

>>8272214
>it would be too risky and time consuming to map it into perfection
No it wouldnt

>>8272216
i just told you that russia or someone else would have figured it out. thats what risky means.
please tell me how that wouldnt be risky.

>>8272214
>you must be retarded
>i believe the moon landing is fake
Oh, the irony.

I don't know what to tell you. Every bit of conspiracy bullshit you brought up has been thoroughly debunked ad nauseum. There's no arguing with conspiracy theorists - you demand concrete proof, which is impossible short of putting you in a time machine and personally sending you on the NASA mission, and at the same time refuse to accept any of the mountains of evidence presented which conflicts with your personal belief. You're worse than religious people.

There's actually been psychological studies on people like you - the results aren't flattering. You should google some of them. In any event, I'm the true idiot here because I chose to bother arguing with you in the first place. I'm going to bed now. Have a wonderful night.

i have also checked out a bit, and there is a problem With the "exposing theory".
if the moon is as Bright as it is. and the moon dust is as reflective as it is, then it would mess up the shadows quite a bit.
and they are not.

>>8272215
>still believe in santa?

You're more likely to than I am, being that you believe in utterly ridiculous conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence. You fail at basic logic - yet I'm the idiot? OK.

>>8272069
>clearly fake
Only to the uneducated and unsceintific

>>8272220
Accurate star maps existed. Mappin a backdrop showing correct star positions would not have been that difficult, especially given that 10% of the US budget was being spent on this hoax anyway

>>8272227
i just explained this to you logically.
and you give me a childish answer. i used to be a photographer for 3 years, and even i find the exposure thing stupid.
the moondust is supposed to be reflective and then it makes no sense.

>>8272232
If you were a photographer how do you not get that you cant photograph bright objects next to dim ones

>>8272233
because im not talking about the photos taken ON the moon. there are several taken along the way to the moon, and still no stars.
some stars are also especially Bright.

>convince me
Sure, our government said it was real and provided pictures of said event. That's enough evidence for me because i'm not a kook and why would they lie.

>>8272240
Show me them then

>>8272246
dude. Google.
i bet you use Bing and find nothing about anything.

>>8272251
I'm not finding your evidence for you. You made a claim, back it up

>>8272069
Nobody here can show you the evidence of that.

>>8272254
so OP?

>>8272279
The scientific method strikes again

No, you convince me what the moon landing has to do with you being convinced about it either way.

>>8272298
>moon landing
whats that ?

File: 1461800097676.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

>>8272241
>muh government never dun gon lie to me
1. Win the race immediately and tell the ruskies to suck a fat cock
2. Save an unimaginable fuckton of money
3. 0 risk, 0 effort
Need I say more?

>>8272302
Was a TV show that ran in the 60's using Kubricks 2001 A Space Odyssey set but was canceled after a few episodes due to lack of interest.

>laser rangefinding gear still on the moon
>Lol hurr durr moon landing was fake

>>8273211
>2. Save an unimaginable fuckton of money
You're forgetting that it also made the Russians waste tons of money trying to get to the moon for no reason, so it was like a double-win.

>>8272201
>capitalizing random letters

What kind of mental disability do you suffer from?

>>8272069
Given the political climate of the period, and the competitiveness between the USA and the Soviets, if it hadn't really happened they'd have thrown a complete and utter bitch fit about it. There would be pictures, and graphs, and assorted other proofs. There are none, and there is nothing they'd have enjoyed more than embarrassing the US.

>>8273265
there are

>>8273757
Only in the heads of crazy people living in basements because they think black choppers are on the way

>>8272069

Get a telescope and look at the moon. The landing site is still visible. Done.

File: _55193708_nasa.jpg (65KB, 660x370px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 660x370px

>>8274237
Pic related

File: Apollo_11_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.jpg (1MB, 2349x2373px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2349x2373px

>ctrl-f reflector
>ctrl-f mirror

Jesus christ /sci/ what is the matter with you all.

When they went up there they placed several mirrors up there that they have shined lasers at for several experiments over the years in measuring moon distances and rotational anomalies.

If anyone wants to prove, at the very very least, that at some point someone landed on the moon, you need only get a high powered laser or email one of the many many scientists who made use of the lunar reflectors.

pic related, they put several up there.

/thread

>>8274283
You ain't fooling me anon, I can see the pixels ;)

File: iss-moon-gay.jpg (243KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 3840x2160px

>>8274283
big banks theoty taught me this

>>8273211
You know they still spent a ton of money to launch a rocket into space right? Considering all the prep NASA would have to go through to stage this coup, faking the moon landing wouldn't be that much cheaper.

HURRRRRRRRRRRR

>>8273257
>What kind of mental disability do you suffer from?


He suffersfrom Shatner... Syndrome. It isaterrible Debilitating illness thatstrikes many without... Warning.

>>8274283
its called a lunar Laser rangefinder not a mirror or reflector

this guys got it
>>8273226

>>8274490
It is literally a reflector though

>>8272069
>i just cant see it.

You're just an idiot then and this thread should have been saged from the beginning.

File: swe20184-fig-0002.jpg (16KB, 315x197px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 315x197px

>>8272069
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfSoWb6W54&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syVP6zDZN7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8

There's a strong case for scientific evidence and a strong case for faulty interpretations of past events in a way to support conspiracy theories.

I go with rational thinking tho, you OP can do w/e the fuck you want ;^)

>>8274589
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE

>>8274283
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA