Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon. Let my argument

saged and hidden, i suggest you all do the same

>>8900982
Response type #6.
>Subject states that the conversation space is irrelevant.

Thank you for your response. I will catalog the type of your response to my study.

>>8900984
make sure you catalog this one as well so everyone can see it. You're a faggot.

>>8900979
>Suppose I don't believe human visited Moon

Then you're an idiot and I don't care what else you might have to say.

>>8900979
That pic looks so fake too.

>>8900979
>>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.

Then explain why the USSR didn't dispute the fact that America landed people on the moon.

>>8900992
Response type #2.
>Subject states that the shape of the conversation is evident by perception.

Thank you for your response.

>>8900991
I pose the same question space on different times on different locations. Non-unique responses will be morphed into a response-type count.

>>8900995
I'll await your response so I can catalog it under 'typical conspiracy theorist tosh'

I'm expecting the 'They were in on it too' response

>>8900995
At the time no one in the west would have believed the soviets.

>>8901003
Yeah, no ones going to believe us, lets not even try AT ALL. Lets give them this monumental win freely.

Fuck you're retarded.

>>8901008
Target group of OP's inquiry is management level cohort. Realization in lower class human population is not in fast realizing goal field.

>>8901008
Maybe they were fooled at first, then later let the american public realise what a waste of money it all really was.

>>8901104

Maybe you're just a moron, ever consider that? The Soviets didn't deny the facts because the Apollo mission sent out a constant stream of radio signals that the Russians could track, they knew the Americans had reached the moon because they could fucking see it for themselves.

But I'm sure you have some idiotically stupid reason to ignore this fact, you "people" are all alike, just cretins with zero intellectual integrity.

Lol what a moron. Forgot your anti-psychotics bro? Make sure to drink them all in one go next time to compensate for the times you didn't.

>>8901114
2 cents have been deposited in your nasa shill account.
Stop being a traitor to the human race.

>>8900979
Tldr but your last statements are wrong. The merit of science is that in principle, ANYONE WITH THE RESOURCES can test it. Biology states that all humans have a liver. With your state of mind, you dont have a liver unless you cut yourself open and take a peek. Also, the Russians have concurred that we made it to the moon. In fact, I haven't heard of a publically represented body that has tried to refute this.

>>8901400
Everyone is on it, anon.
Everyone wants to fool me into thinking a man made it to the moon, because reasons.
Even two nations which literally started manned spaceflight with nigger-rigged ICBM's, just to one-up each other, banded together to fool me, because reasons.

>>8901174

That's right you dumb cunt, if you get BTFO remember to just accuse the other person of "shilling". It's what the intellectually honest person does, rather than admit to being a simpleton.

>>8901423
Ahah!

>>8900979

Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Hoax_claims_and_rebuttals

>>8900979
I love new /sci/ memes

>>8901669
Yeah but we all know who made that. "Them". Using jew math. I've done the math, and the earth is flat

File: 4451794076_43fcbd8f59.jpg (57KB, 500x337px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x337px

>>8900979
your argument is essentially "I don't think the Saturn V is as big as it is, and I don't understand orbital mechanics that well."

The return from the moon is a low fuel requirement maneuver, since the moon has low gravity and the earth will do all the stopping when the capsule gets there. the LM is entirely discarded and the service module has enough fuel for the small burn to get the capsule out of the moon's gravity and slow enough that it will fall into the earth in a timely manner.

The mass is mostly expended to get the three men and their capsule and lander there (around 45,000kg), and the remainder is to get the three men and the capsule and some moon rocks back (around 15,000kg). the fact that the mass is so big was an engineering challenge, not a technological one. it was solved by making the rocket really big, in 5 stages, and designing a separate lander and service module which can fly in an aerodynamic configuration but then rearrange en route to the moon.

>>8901714
*the mass of the saturn V (nearly 3,000,000kg) is how the second sentence should start.

the point is a huge amount of the mass was just fuel spent to get a much, MUCH smaller amount to the moon and back. Your argument seems to make a lot of the fact that the mass is bigger than anything else before it, but that was kind of the point. it was the most ambitious endeavor ever done, and a large part of that was the distance and the scale of a rocket to get there.

>>8900979
>In conclusion: I claim a human has never touched the surface of Moon and returned alive.
Do you have an actual argument for that? Because you sure didn't provide any.

You successfully pointed out that visiting the moon was a harder project than launching unmanned satellites. I think everyone agrees with that. Now explain why you think we didn't go there.

File: Fucking Stupid.jpg (49KB, 740x419px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 740x419px

>some back of the envelope math tells me that the moon is far away and the rocket is big
>therefore it's impossible!

basically, your entire claim rests on the nebulous and unsupported premise that we couldn't have done it, based on your practically nonexistent understanding of the engineering involved. it's not much different from creationfags who think evolution is a hoax because they just can't imagine it happening.
please take your argument from incredulity elsewhere. reality is not subject to the same limitations as your thinking is, and something seeming implausible to you doesn't actually mean it can't be done.

>>8900979
>merit of science is that in principle anyone could verify what you say
not short of doing an actual study (ie. sending rockets to the moon)
you're just trying to prove that this could be possible using known info. but that might not hold up empirically
if really want to do a replication study you have to go to the moon yourself

File: lol.png (140KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x486px

>>8900979
>I don't believe human visited Moon

OP here

Nobody talking about the physics of rockets and space, or materials and fuels of that time? Everyone just talking politics and philosophy (and garbage).

>>8901977
this meme is dead and you should be too

>>8902085
OP: As I said in >>8901721, you still haven't provided an argument we could be discussing.

File: 1475004615084.gif (2MB, 245x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x180px

>>8900979
this is some of the best bait I have ever seen

I made a thread about the fake moon landings, you might want to check it out in the archive. Landing on the moon with 60s technology (the LM apparently had the computing power of a wristwatch) was simply impossible, period, NASA really took the world for a ride.

>>8901400

>With your state of mind, you dont have a liver unless you cut yourself open and take a peek

Not necessarily, I can take the non-invasive approach of X-rays.

>>8900979
>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.
That's not how orbital mechanics work. Getting to orbit is the hard part, requiring a 9,000-10,000 m/s change in velocity to overcome gravity, atmospheric drag, and get to orbital speed. From there you can go a long way much easier. it only takes a further 3,100 m/s to get to the moon, hell, it takes less than 4,000 m/s to get to Mars.

It's not a matter of going to a 1,000 km orbit being twice as hard as going to a 500 km orbit. Not even close.

>>8900979
>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.
If you don't understand the subject, why would you assume others are going to be convinced by your knowledge of it?