Moon Landing

File: 1309431349704.jpg (78KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 550x550px

Lazy ass Millennials need to justify why their generation can't even hold down a job at the 7-11, by suggesting the achievements of their parents and grandparents are just tall tales.

>>17392456
Just watch this short video, it basically proves we never went to the moon

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G5N2eLICRdk

Also, I don't understand how people think the moon pictures look real, just look how close the horizon looks

Because the grand magician is trying to distract you from what the left hand is doing.

They dont want you to know what was really found up there, so they come up with the Hoax that we never even went...

>>17392524
>fbi can't hack into a fucking iPhone
>thinks the government can fake a moon landing...

>>17392501
They can't hold a job at 711 because the 711s are increasingly franchised which means only family works in then. Family from Pakistan ... unlike mine. Mine is American owned.

>>17392539
>FBI can't hack into an iPhone

....what the fuck are you actually talking about? You don't actually believe that do you? Even if you do, how is that related to simple camera tricks?

>>17392456
For some, it's all about getting attention by being a contrarian, trolling dipshit.

For others, it's about fundamentalists being terrified of science because "muh holy book."

And lastly, there's the jealous assholes who just can't abide the fact that Americans have done some pretty awesome things.

Inevitably, Apollo hoax "theories" get tied together with other conspiracy theories, because none of them are sufficiently sturdy to support the weight of their ever-increasing bullshit. Also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism

A flat-earther, an Apollo hoax supporter, and an anti-vaxxer walked into a bar. He ordered a beer.

>>17392574
Lol you're a fucking moron

>>17392574
>A flat-earther, an Apollo hoax supporter, and an anti-vaxxer walked into a bar. He ordered a beer.

I'm stealing that joke. Very funny.

>>17392606
>jealous asshole spotted

>>17392524
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere, hence the distances looking strange

>>17392631
Can you explain the video then?

>>17392658
No I can't

>>17392631
The moon does too have an atmosphere, its just not as strong as ours.

But it does have a thin one.

>>17392524
BS

>>17392631
And it's roughly a quarter the earth's size, meaning it's horizon is far nearer.

>>17392658
yes

Friendly reminder that virtually all posters providing links to poorly-made "epic discourses" on YouTube are either shills, trolls, retards, or all of the above.

>>17392456
Because of the guys who support the "flat earth theory".
Their whole argument grows out of way too many "maybes" to be anywhere near serious.

>>17392501
Oh, like yourself!

Was this apart of your master plan?

>>17392669
It could be. I obviously can't prove it, but still mang...it seems pretty sketchy. I look at this with the same skepticism that I look at all information with, but I accept the possibility that it's true

>>17392680
Okay go ahead

>>17392846
Were you personally present when that video was made for YouTube? How can you know the guy who posted it didn't have some sinister goal of his own and edited the clip just to back his own agenda?

Stop being a pleb and only accept as fact things you actually witness.

>>17392846
Do you have a link to the original footage? I don't click YouTube links. I try not to watch anything that might be of benefit to a click baiting shill.

>>17392658
Nope.

So what?

>>17392864
Did you not read my post? I addressed the possibility that it's not true. But you already knew that, so I don't get why you posted that

>>17392886
Unfortunately I don't, but you seem to be...
>implying that everything you watch isn't benefitting someone

Why do you believe that only flat earthers are "guilty" of this?

They're just idiots.

Anyone with a brain knows it happened.

>>17392501
This is the closest answer in the thread. Basically, it fucks with people to think that we're capable of things that great.

>>17392456
>Why has there been such an overabundance of mostly ridiculous "hoax" conspiracy theories about the 1969 Moon Landing and other Apollo missions over the decades?
There was a mocumentry on Fox or something and people took it as fact. Plus, assloads of people make tons of money selling conspiracy books to rubes that want to feel superior/non-conformist.

File: 1434472868149s.jpg (3KB, 80x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 80x125px

>>17392501
/thread

>>17393092
Last time I checked, NASA's site doesn't generate any ad revenue for them.

>>17393233
shh

>>17393233
When's the last time you checked?

>>17392456
>be me
>worked at NASA all my life
>work in photoshop lab
>remove hundres of alien spacecraft everyday
>tfw aliens don't even care that we see them
>people still don't believe we went to the moon
>kek

Not a robot image selector asked me to select all the images of steak, however it wouldn't verify me until I selected a picture of a pork chop as well.

>>17393684
Just now.

Surely if the moon landing was faked then the USSR would have exposed it?

NASA could solve this bullshit once and for all by just pointing one of their mega telescopes that we have now at the site of the moon landing so we can see the tracks/flag/whatever the fuck is left there After that everyone who refuses to believe can piss off.

>>17393874
he thinks the usa and the ussr are not in cahoots. I'm taking away your tin foil hat.

>>17392658
where's the whole video?
start with that question, and if it's such a damning piece of evidence why it was chopped up from its 50 or so original run time minutes, spliced in with eerie music and a near robotic female voice. the evidence should be than sufficient on its own, shouldnt it?

youre being played.

>>17393882
That would just be fake too, according to these guys, doubly fake since those badass telescopes are in orbit. Those can't exist because "much flat earth," so there's one faction already beyond reach.

>>17392456

Christfags, butthurt Yuropeons, slavaboos, run of the mill tinfoilfags

>>17393092
>Just watch this short video, it basically proves we never went to the moon
> I addressed the possibility that it's not true
Make up your damn mind. You are worse than the tinfoils who just believe everything.
You accept bullshit, but the moment you are challenged you backpedal and claim you didn't really believe it, but you still kinda do believe it and demand proof it's fake.

>>17393882
>People accuse NASA of faking the moon landing
>Would just accept proof from NASA of the moon landing
That's not how it works.
These people are so stupid that even if you flew them to the moon and showed them first hand the evidence of us having landed there they would deny it.

>>17392501
While I agree with your idea that it often comes from a mindset that develops to downplay one's own inadequacy (by pretending that there are nefarious forces keeping down the common person) and play into feelings of being one of the few smart/aware/"enlightened" enough to unravel a deception by the government, I take issue with your ridiculous attempt to link it to "lazy millenials."

>The first book about the subject, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was written in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ended, and self-published in 1976, by Bill Kaysing (1922–2005)

So with a three and a half second google search, you can see that it's a mindset that existed LONG before "lazy millenials" were even a concept.

Now, I would say that the more recent popularity of conspiracies and the part that millenials are actually responsible for is their total lack of critical thought and skepticism when it comes to sharing shit on social media/internet. They see something cool and convincing (at first glance) and they say, hey guys, gotta look at this. And the idea spreads to 50 new people without a single person questioning whether it's true or totally made up. It's not exactly about being lazy. I'd say it's about being complacent and wanting to be star of the show.

Also, millenials and many younger Americans (older, too, but to a lesser degree) have less trust in the government than ever before. So the idea that this was a hoax (or any of the other current conspiracy favorites) fits in with their anti-government beliefs, confirms that they are one of the "chosen few" who understand the truth and helps create a continuity for the US government's ongoing process of lying, deceiving and manipulating it's citizens and the rest of the world.

>>17392548
you really need to educate yourself if you haven't heard this everywhere in the news in the last week. it doesn't surprise me that you're so ignorant though, because all arguments for the moan landing hoax have been debunked time and again if you're willing to seek them out.

>http://wreg.com/2016/02/17/apple-refuses-to-unlock-phone-of-san-bernardino-terrorist/

CEO of Apple refused a request from the FBI to help them hack into for a dead terrorist's cellphone. if they're asking, it's because they can't hack the phone successfully on their own.

>>17394542
I believe the video is real, but of course I wasn't there when these events took place so obviously I can't 100 percent know that it's true. It's not that complicated to understand

>>17394638
>believing everything the media tells him

C'mon bro

>>17395492
>I think it's real
>Lol I never said I think it's true! it might not be
>I think it's real

>>17392456
Guys, they didn't fake the moon landing. They faked the moon. As we all know, the original moon burned down in 1949 when President Truman left the oven on over night. If you've noticed we only see one side of the moon as it rotates at a speed equal to its orbit around Earth. The "face" of the moon we see is all that's left of the original, on the other side is a joint military city-base that makes up the other 3/4th of the moon's original mass. It's pretty damn impressive. The only reason they even shot the moon landing was to justify the amount of rockets they were shooting into space to populate the moon base. Though once they were able to get a stable population of people up there to successfully colonize and make sure the moon wouldn't "accidentally" (silly Truman) burn down again they have not needed to use as many rockets. I think we're at around 3rd gen of moon citizens now.

I hope that answered all your questions

Schizos really, really like space for some reason. Probably because of ayylmaos, flat earth, hollow earth, geocentrism, and the rest of the assortment of mental illness-inspired conspiracy theories.

>>17395558
Why are you purposefully misinterpreting what I posted?

Can you ever truly "know" something is real? No. You analyze the information you're presented and do your best to determine if it's real, which I believe it is. But my belief that it's true doesn't prove 100 percent that it's true, this is very simple stuff. I'm pretty sure you know what I'm saying, you're just being silly

>>17392456
Getting to the moon and back to earth in one shot involves extremely precise orbital calculations. The possibility of missing the moon and earth is a matter of a tiny fraction of a degree in the trajectory as well as the ability to adjust those calculations in real time.

They never landed.

>>17392665
No it does not you retard. Mars has a thin one but not the moon.

but I remember when we were building the pyramids, and it was tougher than a mufucker. And we did it with sound, and we had a blanket. And that's what I was trippin on.

>>17392665
"For most practical purposes, theMoonis considered to be surrounded byvacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared tointerplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunaratmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surroundingEarthand mostplanetsof theSolar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) ofEarth's atmospheric densityat sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space."

No.

>>17395869
>it's hard math, so they never did it
Idiot

File: Awesome.gif (322KB, 266x199px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 266x199px

>>17398072
Top kek

>>17398108
Unintentional pic

>>17392456
Obvious troll is obvious. Try harder.

>>17398124
No.

>>17398072

So the technology, specifically computers onboard were technically sound enough for this venture? or was NASA using technology of present day..that was developed you know decades ago

>>17398153
It's a big rock, it's not that hard to aim at it

>>17395857
Then you clearly don't analyse very hard since you were convinced by a ten minute video on youtube.

>>17398124
>you must be a troll to not believe in my outlandish conspiracy theory

>>17398157

Oh okay makes sense! Thanks

File: as17-134-20387.jpg (323KB, 922x704px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 922x704px

Official Apollo mision photo, edited levels in Photoshop, cropping artifacts along edges are not hard to notice. Earth cut off rectangular form aswell. pic on official nasa web

>>17398153
>They can't do math without iPhones! Case closed!

It's not like we've suddenly changed how math works in the recent years. Doing math has just gotten easier. Like I'm sorry but just because you aren't willing to sit in a room and solve math equations with an abacus and a piece of scratch paper for a paycheck doesn't mean that no one at NASA would either. Like people have been doing crazy shit with math for a long time.

>>17398184
I'm not the math poster, I'm talking about the technology they used to get there and land safely. You know, instruments..materials...technology


Not talking about plotting a course using math you nigger

>>17398216
They had to invent a lot of tech just to do it

>>17398216
>>17398153
Then what the hell do you mean by >specifically computers onboard were technically sound enough for this venture?

> I'm talking about the technology they used to get there and land safely. You know, instruments..materials...technology

So like if you mean were the computers sound enough to survive going into space then that's just a retarded ass question if you mean were they sound enough to chart the course then see my other post.

If you mean literally the instruments they had on board and the materials they were made out of then see >>17398225 Necessity is the mother of invention.

I'm skeptical of the moon landings too but not for these reasons.

>>17398181
Wait, what.

Anon, post original (sans levels) with source / screen cap so anons can save it.

I've never bought into this conspiracy because I couldn't see a good motive and the evidence didn't seem that convincing to me, but that shit's weird.

Anyone got a reasonable debunk? That flag looks pretty obvious.

>>17398318
jpeg artifacts. duh.

Anyone who actually believes we went to the moon in the 60's and early 70's is a fucking gullible idiot and there is absolutely no point in trying to argue with them to convince them otherwise. Truly intelligent people understand it was all a psyop which served multiple purposes, and dumb shit wannabe science bros sucking NASA'S cock will kick and scream and throw insults like they always do. Nothing more to say, really.

>>17398494
/thread

File: image.jpg (28KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 256x256px

New photos of some lunar landing sites.

http://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html

>>17395492
>not knowing current events and getting all your science and news from youtube

>>17398750
We were/are able to get to and from the moon, just not on that tinfoil and balsa wood 5th grade science fair project

>>17398494
Here's your fucking psyop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures#Against_the_United_States

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sword-Shield-Mitrokhin-Archive/dp/0465003125

http://www.amazon.com/Mitrokhin-Archive-Europe-Penguin-History/dp/0140284877

This is the kind of shit you resort to when the truth isn't on your side. If Russia had proof the Apollo missions were being faked, they would have been blowing them out of thwater in 1969. Instead, they resorted to a disinformation campaign. One of their go-to strategies was infiltrating churches.

Now, does anyone else find it interesting that flatheads and Apollo hoax advocates tend to be fundamentalist religious types? I sure do.

>>17398750
Why's that? Because "muh Van Allen Belts?"

Try again.

>>17398883
Pro tip: signal triangulation alone would have been all the Russians needed to call shenanigans.

>>17398893
was meant for
>>17398785

I can't help but wonder if the task of getting to the moon is really as impossible as a lot of nay-sayers make it out to be.

What if getting to the moon actually isn't that hard?

>>17393818
proof faggot

sun isnt visible in space stars arent visible aswell

>>17392456
Facts:
1) the amount of protection from the radiation was to limited to protect them in space that would be concentrated by the earths magnetic field
2)in some Official pics put forward by nasa little + signs show up partially behind things. those existed on the lenses themselves to help the people taking studying the photos understand what was in frame better. like approximated distance
3)multiple sources of light are seen in some pics and they didnt have flash lights with them

>>17398989
A guy did a video about how getting to the moon in the 60s would have actually been easier than faking it. Especially since long range rockets that could get to space already existed. Putting people in them and shooting them up had worked already, so we shot some people at the moon. Nixon actually had a speech pre written for if the astronauts all just fucking died you can find somewhere too.

>>17399071
>not one fact

>>17399071
Fact:
You don't understand shit about radiation dosage, the Van Allen Belts, or photography.

>>17392539
>he believes the San Berdoo shooter actually had an iPhone

>>17392456
A big reason is that literally nobody else was around. If you say 9/11 was bombs inside the WTC and no planes were involved, you can ask New Yorkers.There are literally tens of thousands of eyewitnesses and if you want, you could walk up to any person and say "how long have you lived here, did you see any planes, etc." Not many people saw the first one, but a lot saw the second. Similarly, with something like Sandy Hook, if you adopt the idea that the entire event was staged and that the children and families were all actors, you can drive to the community in Newtown and literally ask anyone yourself if they knew any of the people, and it won't be hard to disprove. This threshold works for most people, but it doesn't work on all conspiracy theories (like this one) because of a sort of intrinsic lack of public witnesses. This obviously includes covert government (or any organization really, but usually specifically government, since they have the greatest ability to suppress information) actions, which would not be directly tied to the government, either acting via proxy to execute a change or secretly forcing a small group to do their bidding in order to manipulate people. In either case, the lack of information that could form a paper trail(at least for decades usually) isn't accessible to the public. So, to use the example of Sandy Hook again, this time from a different conspiratorial angle: some propose that the shooter involved was coerced, manipulated, or trained by government agents to carry out the attack. In this case, there are no available witnesses who can dispute this, since nobody involved in the coercion would be able (or willing) to testify or come out publicly if it WERE true, and none of the current witnesses could know that. With the moon landing, everyone could see the rocket launch or the landing, but ultimately nobody else was on the moon with them. It's easier for a theory to catch on when millions didn't see the thing happen.

>>17393829
This is the real story here

>>17398883
Shout out for those fucking links dude I can't believe it was the fucking Russians this whole time. All these fucking conspiracy theories like fucking fluoride in the water, AIDS, MLK killed by the govt, were fucking Russia. That's hilarious.

>>17392501
Haha I like your style man. Too bad stupid people can't taste the joke and actually got irritated and proceeded to insult you.

Of course traditional man that grew in traditional style was more capable, with more brain mass than the average millennial that was exposed to television and video games which literally amputated most brain faculties.

>>17399147
>more brain mass
Opinion discarded.

>>17399189
Read any study done in the last two decades about effects of video games, television and pornography on the brain - it's the number 1 things millennials consume.

But of course you discard my opinion you're busy preaching flat earth somewhere on the internet.

>>17399193
You clearly don't know what mass means. Go ask /sci/ about your opinion before you hurt yourself.

>>17392501
The generation that supposedly went to the moon could not fucking stand to even pick fucking fruit without being patted on the back and created the same system that eventually had nasa jobs outsourced to third worlders.

Its easy when you grow up with preferential treatment and no AA and then instituted it for your kids and act like were equal lol

Millennia's are not old enough to even hold office.

>>17394146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Hmjklmy6o

explain this.

>>17399197
>means
brain matter - excuse my physics illiteracy I must've never been interested in mechanics.

Actually thank you very much for correcting me - It made me aware of this big mistake I could've repeated - also I don't understand why did you assume I am violent or trying to counter-argue you in such a manner, guess everyone feels offended by antonyms on internet.

>>17399057
>Sun isn't visible in space
Do you expect the sun to be in every photo no matter which direction they are facing?

>Stars aren't visible
Go take a photo at night in a brightly lit area. Can you see the stars?
The exposure is set for the astronauts/moon so it is not long enough to capture the stars as well.

File: Apollo-all-LRO-views_ST.jpg (86KB, 482x540px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 482x540px

>>17399353
>Stars aren't visible
>Go take a photo at night in a brightly lit area. Can you see the stars?
>The exposure is set for the astronauts/moon so it is not long enough to capture the stars as well.

Umm, sorta, but mostly No. Common mistake

The reason you don't see the stars in the pictures on the moon is because it is the equivalent of -daytime-. Where the lunar explorers are the sun is shining, it's as bright or brighter than noon back on Earth . Yes, the sky is black but that's a lack of appreciable atmosphere problem.

>>17392501

I hate millennials but the Boomers have probably doomed the human race.

>>17399518
>I hate millennials but the Boomers have probably doomed the human race.

So what? We'll be dead by then. What have future generations ever done for me? Nothing, that's what. Enjoy your highly diversified, oh no global warming future. :)

>>17392539
>the FBI is the entire government

File: 1432586202407.jpg (625KB, 1755x1769px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1755x1769px

>>17392456

>>17399634
This picture has been doctored. Just like the planned parenthood videos.

File: F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg (31KB, 450x280px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 450x280px

Because we went to the moon with technology further ahead of what the general public knew about at the time. People believe it was faked because they had no idea we a camera that could take a photo in that atmosphere and various other similar situations. It's understandable why people would come to that conclusion it's faked especially with the practice landings on a moon set. Unfortunately the whole thing took on a life of it's own and people never self corrected.
I am sure there is technology being used that is sigificantly ahead of what we are publically aware of now. The Nighthawk was being tested in 1981 and it's existence wasn't well known till the first Iraq War. Before that it was some weird ufo the skywatchers out west were reporting. I some remember people at the time saying that it wasnt even real, that it was fancy cover they put over a space shuttle to make us feel like badasses.

top fucking kek
>hoax`s
>muh conspiracies
/thread

File: 432423423432.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>17399634
>suppressed follow up photo

Astronauts damn near ran out of air before they could walk all the way back to the lander.

>>17392456
There are just so many contradictions to the moon landing. Everything from the flag, boot prints, radiation, the interview, cold war, lights and shadows, that movie director, just so many details I can't list all of them. It kinda makes you wonder. Did we actually land on the moon?

>>17399122
youre smart and i like you

Uhhh, no, the generation that went to the moon were the same guys who pulled our shit back together after the Great Depression and fought in WWII. Their like will not be seen again.

And now their watch has ended.

>>17399249
Done.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/nest/133905495?ref_=tt_bd_1

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


That IMDB link is to a lengthy forum discussion on the (absolute lack) of merits for that documentary sourced for your clip.

Short answer: there was color film of the landing, just no live TV color video because the TV cameras were too bulky. That video makes the(well, I'll be kind and not call it misrepresentation) "mistake" of confusing video and film. The 16mm Hasselblahd unedited footage can be found here at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GtCvZlXeVk

And this forum here will calmly and rationally dismantle any and all moon hoax "evidence," but be forewarned - if you go in snarky, half-cocked, and abusive, they will tear you a plethora of shiny new assholes.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=3.0

(Links edited - just replace the "(dots)" as needed)

The most fundamental issue with all Apollo hoax allegations which they seem to silently ignore are the Saturn Vs. Of course if you are flatearther jumbo for whom everything is a conspiracy you can't be helped, but for those who think we did go to space just not to the moon, the rockets themselves pose a very basic problem.

Because the launches undeniably happened, and they had the capacity to lift such masses, just look up Skylab or the earlier Earth orbit Apollo test mission.
And since tracking objects in Earth orbit isn't hard NASA couldnt have just let them stay here, they had to go somewhere.
Now basic stuff like radio triangulation alone will tell you they did indeed go to the Moons vicinity.

There are more problems. The famous lunar ranging experiment needed precise setup or else we couldn't use it, which needs either manual placement or robot technology. Now the Soviet Lunokhods did just this so technically the manned part could be omitted.

Then theres the issue of samples. They were checked with lunar meteorites and Soviet samples gathered by unmanned missions, so either lot more people were in the play or NASA too used unmanned sample retrieving tech, then hide to hide the details of this tech.

And you can go on.You could finetune an unmanned Apollo theory to produce the same results, but in the end you are replicating Apollos efforts with similar same financial, management and engineering requirements except you make it lot more convoluted and bumping it up with a hugeneed for perfect, everlasting secrecy. At this point its just easier to do the actual manned Apollo.

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

>>17392456
Some argue that Lincoln was the start of the US government attempting to get a tyrannical grasp over the population. I don't know about that, but you never see it starting to happen during the Cold War. Prohibition doesn't come close to this period in which the Communist threat was used as an excuse for the undermining of civil liberty. America has not been the same since.

The moon landing is a major symbol of their capacity for deception in this period. Perhaps THE major symbol. The moon landing left an impression on the international consciousness, while McCarthy was simply domestic.

File: 5starpost.jpg (49KB, 351x440px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 351x440px

>>17395593

>>17399634
That picture was taken after the astronaut had been moving around prepping what was essentially a display for some items brought along for what they called a "VIP site." Here's a link to the official journal detailing the events.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html

And here's an assembled panorama of images that shows the tracks free of an area where an astronaut was kicking up dust and obscuring tracks with his own footprints.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15pan1674859.jpg

Bear in mind, a rover carrying its maximum payload would only weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 256 lb(116 kg) on the moon, riding on wire mesh tires, so the tracks wouldn't be all that dramatic to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Mass_and_payload

http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml

>>17400648
I predict this will be responded to with another picture taken out of context with bright red circles and arrows, because it's a lot easier to draw than it is to research. Hoaxers have to stay in the shallow end so their lack of actual knowledge doesn't show up so glaringly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>Usenet:
>
>search for William Cooper ufo
>
>bad quality but very interesting stuff with
>a bunch of officials

>
>worth watching
>

File: 1447268368411.jpg (88KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 2048x1365px

>>17392535

This is the only correct answer in the thread. Everyone else is just arguing for no reason than to argue.

File: robotech_by_hideyosi.jpg (842KB, 2000x1808px) Image search: [Google]

842KB, 2000x1808px

>>17400529
Not to mention that NASA's "robotech" would have had to have been vastly superior to such a greater abundance of samples than the Soviets were capable of procuring. The Apollo missions managed to bring back just shy of 400 kg of rock while the Soviets only managed 130 grams, or .13 kg.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1019.html

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1019.html

File: 1455650513995.gif (2MB, 376x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 376x279px

>>17392456

>>17392501
> People have been calling the moon landing a hoax since the 70s
> "FUCKING MILLENIALS BACK IN MY DAY WE PLAYED WITH ROCKS AND WE HAD FUN!"

>>17399525
Created this site.

>>17400738
who stayed behind and filmed that?

>>17401028

Remote-controlled camera on the rover.

http://www.universetoday.com/117331/how-nasa-filmed-humans-last-leaving-the-moon-42-years-ago/

>>17400738
the retarded flying coffee pot always remind me of space 1999 the shitty TV series. Back in the time special effects were lame, the reason so many people have swallowed the moon landing bullshit for so long is gullibility.

>>17392456
SCP-2001

>>17400762
We all wish that had never happened. This place is worse than heroin.

>>17401065
Yeah, I can see how it would fool people.

https://youtu.be/0cq7isloJj8?list=PL88g1zsvCrjfct4TWi297Mc9L0Hb9aBWL&t=4

File: Earth-Apollo-Zond.png (492KB, 1590x882px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1590x882px

>>17401198
I do too

>>17392456

thread theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTttOzBwLo#t=63

File: Paco-Bellido1.jpg (673KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1280x853px

>>17401308
So what's your point - that they used different-sized models or failed to verify their position between their "studio shots?"

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34517/how-do-people-shoot-very-large-moon-views

>>17401308

Camera specs and such.

http://mentallandscape.com/V_Cameras.htm

http://mentallandscape.com/V_Cameras.htm

File: ats50848_comparison.jpg (28KB, 397x294px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 397x294px

>>17401308

More camera stuff.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread325439/pg1

>>17401353
Your theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmPehlHK3w

File: apollo17-moon-landing-site-lro-image.jpg (844KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 1600x1200px

Some third-party evidence.

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

http://www.zarya.info/Kettering/Kettering.php


And here's some recent photos of some of the landing sites.

http://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html

File: Image40-lowgravity.png (43KB, 353x261px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 353x261px

>>17401402
my point is that shit is retarded by modern standards on special effects. Even then it was borderline and only worked because of the middle class gullibility

>>17398181
>photoshop before photoshop existed

File: AS14-66-9306HR-composite.jpg (733KB, 2340x2359px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 2340x2359px

>>17401667

can't tell if shill or retard.

>>17401683
You're pointing to the reseau plate alignment marks as evidence and calling me retarded.

>>17401659
You happen to know what footage that's from? I want to do a cross-check. Another question - did you cross-check it to make sure those aren't some kind of compression artifacts?

>>17392539
Basically this. Fake moon landing garbage also contradict the alien craft and UFOs seen during Apollo missions seen from astronauts. Ffs

File: zzzCRock.jpg (40KB, 329x301px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 329x301px

>>17401715
>le reseau plate alignment marks

sure thing

File: Image39-lowgravity.png (138KB, 808x637px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 808x637px

>>17401778
I don't have the time nor do I have the will to cross check something I know to be a lie since I know for a fact that Earth is flat.
now it's time to fuck off shill

>>17402237
They appear to be the same marks, Notice the warped curvature of the moon's horizion in >>17401683 . The lines are distorted by the camera's glass element

File: Image14.png (495KB, 707x698px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 707x698px

>>17402409
>Notice the warped curvature of the moon's horizion in >>17401683 (You)

I don't see it and no need to waste your time with that bullshit.

>>17400094
Damn Ayy niggers.

File: moon landing site.jpg (179KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 600x400px

>>17393882
already been done

people will just claim that its fake

>>17401028
the ayys

>>17392501
we live in the world you created gramps

File: 1453707217718.jpg (76KB, 952x534px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 952x534px

>>17392456
butt hurt communists obviously

File: 1340238037402.jpg (43KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 400x400px

>>17402242
>I know for a fact that Earth is flat.

>>17402656
Problem is that's a cheap flyby satellite not a reliable ground-based megatelescope at all...

>>17401667
>Photoshop is the only way to edit an image

>>17402425
The idea that this is fake is laughable.

Look at the ground in the two images. Notice the tracks, prints, and rocks are all different.
So am I to believe they spent time rearranging a few small rocks and covering up tracks, but failed to change the background?

For such a large operation they would not move the lander around. They would build the set with a fixed location for the lander in mind.

This is just stupid people not understanding photography, field of view, compression, and a myriad of other factors that play into photographs.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 558x338px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 558x338px

>>17402242
That's fine. I rather suspected there would be no further information forthcoming from you, so I took it upon myself to look into it further. I started from pic related.

It occurs during the Apollo 17 mission at 120:59:36 GEP(that's elapsed time since blastoff). You can find a rip of the original film here:

https://archive.org/details/Jsc-603Apollo17-OnTheShouldersOfGiants.wmv#

It's a rip from the original film that was released back in 1973(and you can download it for free). You'll find the footage with your "proof" in it at the 11 minute mark. Notice the two light patches on the hillside in the background that line up perfectly with your "wires;" furthermore, notice that one of the "wires" seems to continue on in front of the astronaut to the left.

In short, your "proof" is an artifact introduced by digital compression. There's an excellent analysis of it here:

http://youtu.be/domtyECeabA

At some point, you should probably devote some of your valuable time to pondering the implications of why other people are more interested in validating your proof than you are and what that means about you.

File: image.jpg (148KB, 580x386px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 580x386px

>>17402242
Oh, and just a couple of more things before I go:

>>17403032
I said the astronaut on the left; I meant the right. I should also add that you should please feel free to advance that video I linked frame by frame like the jackass had to do to find your "proof" in the first place. It's impressive, really, the amount of laziness and haphazard fact-checking these people do who so earnestly seek "the truth."

>>17402237
Pic related is the original picture of your rock.

>>17402425

>>17402988 already handled it nicely. Now fuck off back to YouTube with the rest of your retard clan.

>>17398181
> "Look mom I posted it again!"

File: B^U.jpg (7KB, 186x213px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 186x213px

>>17399249
>banned in America
we're off to a good start here

File: perspective gif.gif (1004KB, 402x301px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 402x301px

>>17402425
you don't understand optics
you don't understand camera lenses
you don't understand perspective

it's that ignorance that causes you to misinterpret the evidence

They can land in the moon but they cant make my armpits smell good.
Not.

File: 1432748181180.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>17392524
>just look how close the horizon looks

File: hassie7b.jpg (64KB, 556x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 556x600px

>>17403535
are you saying the astronauts played around with optics, lenses and prespective?

File: 0_0.jpg (34KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x373px

>>17392658
>take a listen at this never seen, never heard, never manipulated and totally legitimate recording of easily misinterpretable conversations.

>>17403590
are you saying they weren't? Did they go into space with a single lens and no means of adjusting it?

>>17403590
They had two cameras with two lenses.

Perspective compression would be different for both lenses depending on the distance to the subject and angle.

>>17403579
...yeah, what's your point?

They overshot the moon and to fake it on a secret soundstage on Mars.

File: image.gif (51KB, 209x302px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 209x302px

moon truthers never have anything other than 'muh optics' that only other morons can confirm. I mean just look who's on both sides of the debate: scientists worldwide vs .gif examiners/walmart security guards. not every conspiracy is aligned this way, there are plenty of respectable people on the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 WTC7 etc.

Kubrick was free and had worked with NASA on 2001. He was also literally the only person on earth who couldve pulled it off. Just the fact that he was let into NASA during Cold War secretive times should raise buttloads of alarms. Personally I believe he was tapped to fake some footage in case anything was discovered.

the fact is that Americans did land on the moon though, there's a mountain of scientic evidence. if you're trying to discredit this fact you'll always be made to look as stupid as you look. Even the Societs got living beings past the van Allen belts. Any issue of radiation can be solved by thinking minds. this had been proven a thousand times over (I know, by shills).

unless someone talks we'll never know what they might have hid or what type of plan they had to hide anything. Kubrick is dead. The Apollo 11 astronauts don't seem to want to talk.

Anyone that believes the moon landing is fake your an idiot. If you can prove the math wrong then there is a possible it of the wing false but it's not. Math proves space travel to the moon is possible and it is

>>17404192
so that is why there still investing time and money to solve the van allen belt problem eh

>>17392456

Because it's a way for dumb people to feel smart.

>You believe the moon landing happened? Pffft hahahahaha you should check out this Youtube video I saw you fucking sheep.

>>17392501
never heard a millenial deny the moon landing

its mostly boomer, x /pol/ tards

>>17404223
Nobody is implying that the solution in 1969 was perfect

The fact that they're still working on radiation shielding doesn't prove anything.

>>17404254
loving every laugh

>>17395492
You only think they can do it because you don't know how encryption works.

Yes, the FBI could technically break into an iPhone same as anyone else.

It would just take literally hundreds of thousands of years.

>>17404254
they are working on space gorillas, anon.
that's how stupid they think you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0lpiXAHuyA

mandatory video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bEBOPITQQs

>>17403535
that was a trip lmao.

>>17404214
Well yes.

They sent the Apollo astronauts with the hope that they would be moving fast enough to not be effected.

They still want to solve a way to get through there safer.

>>17404478
People just don't want to see. It's so obvious that it's all bullshit. And then they want to call us stupid for putting the facts together and telling people. Lol okay

>>17404478
Jesus Christ what an annoying cunt.

>>17404705
I think NASA is the annoying cunt for shoving bullshit down our throats for almost 50 years

>>17404721
why can't they both be annoying cunts

File: FlatEarth.jpg (54KB, 1620x854px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1620x854px

>>17392708
Shut up senpai

>>17404733
Good point

We did go to the moon guys!
Thats where the sniper that shot JFK was!

Jesus H Christ, does anyone seriously think the moon landings were faked when Russia was watching very carefully?
This was the height of the cold war. If Russia could prove we didn't go to the moon, they would have been all over it just to embarrass the US.
How do intelligent people believe this crap?

>>17405333
implying american cold war citizens would have believed the russians

implying the ussr would even have a way of disseminating the info to the US

>>17405408
Gotcha. So that means they wouldn't even have tried to sway the rest of the world, amirite?

Pretty pathetic.

>>17405451
who, you mean the countries that were already allied with either the US or the USSR? you need to read some history dude, your /x/ is showing.

>2016

not knowing about the iron curtain

>>17405451
by the way, i dont even believe that it was a hoax, i just find the prospect of the soviets being able to even convince anyone of the fact laughable, even if they did actually have solid evidence.

>>17405503
>>17405533
I don't see it being a problem if all they had to do was call bullshit and say once, just once, that their triangulation showed the live broadcasts were coming from anywhere other than where NASA claimed the astronauts were.

Even amateur ham radio operators could have blown the whistle, not to mention this school:

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

File: flat-earth-horizon-flat.jpg (113KB, 950x783px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 950x783px

>>17402747

i dont believe in the bible and i know for a fact the earth is flat

maybe the person your replying to does believe in the bible and is christian or some other known religion but im not

theres an endless amount of evidence and proof the earth is not a spinning ball, period.

>>17402747
Actually shithead, this has little to do with the fucking bible.

>>17405408
Well the Russians actually had a program for this specific subject. Someone earlier linked it. They had agents in the US starting conspiracy theories that sounded plausible but that they knew not to be true. One such theory was that the US never went to the moon. The US did the same thing both at home and abroad to Russia. So, Russians were able to pitch this idea to Americans, that's one of the ways it caught on, but they didn't have proof, which is what this all comes back to.

>>17406669
>there's an endless amount of images with lines added in paint
FTFY

File: lolflat.jpg (98KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1366x768px

>>17406669
First off, there's pretty apparent curvature in your picture, secondly, dogcams suffer from some pretty pronounced fisheye, so without knowing its exact altitude, it's impossible to tell how much of that is due to curvature and how much from fisheye. Lastly, obligatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQw_C5KLhFM

This guy used a Fliphd camera, specifically to avoid the extreme fisheye effect that comes from GoPro cameras. Be aware that the curvature it shows is much more in line with what one could expect to observe with the naked eye, and at a height of 121,000 ft., it had achieved a vantage point roughly analogous to what an ant would observe while perched atop a twelve-gauge wire wrapped around a bowling ball.

Pic related is a still from the video that absolutely, unquestionably shows curvature.

>>17406838
>>17406838
Also, take note of the fact that I intentionally chose a shot with the horizon at a slant, because it helps illustrate the absence of fisheye.

Also, I've been curious. Why do all the flathead's "proof" shots from balloons always have something in the foreground. Makes you wonder if perhaps they are, intentionally or not, using a close object like that to narrow the camera's field of view. Surely you guys woudn't try to mislead anyone, I mean great seekers of truth that you are.

>>17405408
It would have been front page news all over the world since there would have been corroboration from the Soviet Union.
These were the sixties not the McCarthy era, people were already in the streets protesting the Vietnam War and history was marching towards Watergate and Daniel Ellsberg where whistleblowing and government distrust began to rise.
The US isn't the only news venue on the globe. If this was verifiably true, every news organization on the planet would have covered it, including the NY Times and Washington Post. It would have been the news story of the decade, at least.

>>17406669
Please tell me you don't seriously believe the world is flat... How can people think this in 2016?

>>17392456
There many be a huge list of moon landing hoax theories, and most of them may be ridiculous, but most of them are not popular. The popular theories that actually get talked about over and over again are what's important and are mostly not ridiculous. The us was in a space race with the Soviets. The us was losing so it was extremely beneficial to make it appear as if they had landing a human on the moon. It is what led the Soviet union to spend way too much money to fail at something. That's not to say that the us never landed on the moon. Just that the moon landing footage was faked, and that the first moon landing probably wasn't the first moon landing. Stanley Kubrick even admitted to filming the hoax.

>>17392539
You mean that they hacked an iPhone to plant evidence, then said the iPhone belonged to the shooter and that they couldn't hack it then tried to force Apple to do what they already did in secret to give credence to the planted evidence on the phone. It takes more explanation but it also makes more sense then that the government can't hack into a civilian device.

>>17407897
>Stanley Kubrick even admitted to filming the hoax.
don't bother backing that up with a source or anything

>>17392574
Sounds like you have an agenda without a logical argument. Or would you like to add some evidence to the character assassinations you're making?

>>17392574
By provide evidence I mean more than just one Wikipedia article that does y speak for the majority of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax.

>>17406838

what is that red line over the clouds supposed to be?
where is the mandatory downward curvature that I should be looking at on a cuck sphere?
how are you supposed to not get a right/left curvature with your eye balls exactly?
how are you supposed to not get a right/left curvature looking at a disc?
can you be even more stupid?

>>17407897
>space race
are we talking of that space between the ground and the dome?

>>17392629
He calls you an idiot because what you said was self evidently stupid. Calling him a jealous asshole is a fallacy because there is absolutely no information to reach that conclusion. It is appreciated that you did that little extra to show your ineptitude.

>>17392708
The flat earth is easy to disprove, because we are on the earth and it is about the present. The moon landing conspiracies involve a celestial object and the past before everyone had cameras and the internet when you last your livelihood and sometimes went to jail as a communist for questioning the government. Also, convincing everyone that the earth is round when it's flat doesn't really serve a purpose. Convincing everyone the us went to the moon before the Soviets during the cold war had an extremely relevant purpose. The us moon landing is the main reason the Soviet union failed, because they spent so much money trying to do what they thought the us had already done.

>>17395891
Take that information and relate it to pictures. I'm not saying the pictures look funky. I've never been to space or the moon. I don't know for sure what they should look like. However, if someone claims the atmosphere of the moon would change or did change the picture then what you just said actually proves that validity. What you said is that there is a visual atmosphere but that it does not have the same physical properties most planetary atmospheres have.

>>17408032
>The flat earth is easy to disprove
then do it
I'm waiting

also feel free to explain this

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-9534848-stock-footage-time-lapse-of-the-moon-setting-over-water-with-moving-stars-and-milky-way-note-there-are-many.html

and this

http://www.shutterstock.com/fr/video/clip-4526936-stock-footage-moon-rise-from-the-ocean-timelapse-with-stars.html?src=recommended/2516963:5/3p

>>17395869
I believe the footage from the first landing was fake. That being said, your argument hold no value. You didn't prove an impossible. You made the argument that soccer and billiards never happened because they are too difficult.

>>17392456
Shills want the riffraff to think we never made it to another rock in space so they can take all the spaceships in underground bunkers and leave is behind when shit gets real.

>>17408053
>then do it
There are some pretty simple proofs

Proof: The Earth always casts a round shadow on the moon. If it were flat, this would not happen.

Proof: Witnessing the sun/moon/ships disappearing over the horizon from bottom to top. If the Earth were flat they would not appear to be moving downwards

Proof: Pillars cast shadows of different lengths and at different angles, depending on where they are on the globe. If the Earth were flat, all shadows would be uniform

Proof: You can see farther from a high vantage point, even when you're looking across a flat plane. If the Earth were flat, your field of vision would be exactly the same, no matter how high up you were.

Proof:

>>17407926
I already did.

>>17405713
>>17403058
>>17403032
>>17401778
>>17401544
>>17401454
>>17401445
>>17401050
>>17400727
>>17400668
>>17400648
>>17400472
>>17398896
>>17398883
>>17398750
>>17392574

File: lolflatnolines.jpg (87KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1366x768px

>>17407938
>can you be even more stupid?
Your post serves as a fine example of just how much more stupid I could be.

Here's the original. Draw your own lines.

>>17408340
you're doing the lord's work

>>17408453
I bet you believe rocket science is real.

>>17408559
I bet you're not even going to try to prove it's false, and that if you do try, you're going to try doing so with some YouTube links to some horribly ill-considered "experiments."

>>17394421
>1960's America, nearly every person involved in Apollo was a Christfag
>Christfags don't believe we went to the moon

LOL WUT?

>>17395869
>math class was really tough for me
>must of been too tough for NASA engineers with computers

isn't it past your bed time?

We can bounce lasers off reflectors set up on the moon and shit.

But to answer your question, to be le epic contrarian.

>>17408053
It's all in the optics, my friend. If you make your filming subject a specific point in the sky using a wide-angle lens, objects will appear to get disproportionately smaller as they get further and further from the center of the shot. It's yet another case of fisheye effect, something that flatheads choose to ignore or apply as is convenient for them. Here's a great example of what sunsets look like when you're focusing on the sun instead of an arbitrary point in the sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwus2nqU0SY

Here's a long video of a sailboat passing over the horizon, totally unedited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70_KxONGtHs

Some discussion on flatheads:
https://www.metabunk.org/what-to-do-about-the-flat-earthers-debunk-or-ignore.t6707/

Tons and tons of debunking of commonly presented "proof," most notably of the polar projection model that always pops up in flathead discussions.

At the end of the day, flatheads, regardless of their personal convictions, are all equally guilty of intellectual dishonesty. They pick and choose what's acceptable for "proof," ignore legitimate rebuttals, and handwave away anything that contradicts their point of view. They'll just continue to offer up the same tired old "proof" and demand it be refuted anew a few weeks from now. For this reason, I intend to start demanding proof of their "ice wall" Antarctica before discussing any other "proof" they have to offer. Given their proclivity for moving the goalposts on what they'll allow for evidence, I'm setting these criteria for what I'll consider as irrefutable evidence(see follow-up post)

>>17409481
1) Book a cruise semi-circumnavigating Antarctica from either New Zealand to South America, or vice versa.

http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1327

https://www.google.com/#q=cruises+that+circumnavigate+antarctica

2) Provide daily, time-stamped video of your trip, including such details as your departure, cruising speed, course, shipboard activities, and your arrival at port, confirming you are indeed where they told you you'd be.

3) Documentation proving you actually took the trip.

4) Explain how it was possible to make such a trip in the elapsed time using a flat earth model.

Sounds like a fun vacation to me, and one that you and your fellow flatheads shouldn't have any trouble getting a fund-raising campaign started to cover, you know, in the name of truth.

>>17399147
>As he shitposts on 4chan
What is it with old fucks having zero self awareness?

People in this thread actually claim to believe we went to the moon.

Why do you purposefully deceive the population? None of it adds up

>>17409556
Who told you it was fake?

>>17409569
The obviously fake videos and pictures that NASA puts out

>>17409576
What's true, then? Do you believe anything you don't witness with your own eyes?

>>17409579
Not 100 percent, no. But some things seem more plausible than others

For example, when I see a video recorded by NASA where "astronauts" are working on the "international space station" and a water bubble escapes from their helmets, it seems more plausible that it was filmed in a water tank than in space

>>17409576
I've learned more about the Apollo missions just checking behind the slipshod, possibly dishonest "proof of fakery" that hoax believers offer up than I ever learned about it in school.

>>17409591
If you're talking about those "bubbles" in the recent China EVA outside the ISS, then all I have to say is those are some mighty rectangular bubbles. Care to discuss the rest of the live broadcast?

https://youtu.be/gMxQEHfU6hM

That's some mighty thin water for a flag to whirl around like that.

>>17409659
Cool to see the "bubbles" traveling in different directions instead of just straight toward the "surface" there at 3:56 to 4:06. It's also the first case of "tumbling bubbles" I've ever seen.

http://rowvid.com/?v=gMxQEHfU6hM

This site will allow you to advance YouTube urls frame by frame. Sometimes, it's like it's the hoax advocates that aren't even trying.

>>17409659
I don't know which ones they were and I'm not sure what your point is

I never said that's the only thing convincing me now did I? There's lots of other things.

If anybody actually has any interest in if they've been lied to their whole life then they'll look into it. If not, they won't. Obviously I can't make anybody believe it's fake. I don't have much desire to honestly

>>17407926
To have your character assassinated, you have to have character to begin with.

>>17407938
cracker what?

>>17409727
My point is that if the evidence for a hoax starts falling apart with tools no more robust than what's in our hands courtesy of a website, MSPaint, and our own application of physics, it's not all that great as far as evidence goes.

If you'd like, hunt down the "bubble" footage that has you convinced and we'll see how well it holds up o scrutiny, assuming that you're talking about different footage than what I already turned up.

>>17406669
hold up, if we have megatelescopes that can tell the footprints on the moon from earth, why cant we just build one of them on everest and train it on a mcdonalds back in the states?

>cuz earth isnt flat you faget

>>17410430
Well to be perfectly fair, we don't have telescopes with resolution that kickass. I just got done typing this up in response to a question on the same subject.
>>17410563

>>17409481
>Argues the optics of wide-angle lens
>Posts a video done on a telephoto lens to back it up

>>17409727
>This video I saw proves to me it was fake
This video?
>Lol I don't know which video
Ok, here is why these aren't bubbles
>Lol I don't care I have other evidence to support my delusions!!!

Interesting how you just gloss over the fact that you were proven wrong and continue in your delusions.

>>17410773
Yeah, it's called providing a contrast, but just for you, I'll see if I can find a sunset on a GoPro focused on the hozizon instead of an arbitrary point in the sky.

The dumbest bit about the moon landing hoaxers is if it was faked why would the Soviets congratulate the US after it happened? Soviets tracked Apollo 11 to the moon, or else they would have called it out as fake, and if the US could get a dummy Apollo 11 to the moon, why would they need to fake the landing?

>>17410947
>implying the space race was real and Russia and the US are not apart of the same global NWO campaign.

>>17404254
Radiation shielding because long term exposure is bad. They can't leave someone on the moon for months or send someone to mars because of the months of solar radiation. A few days probably upped the Apollo astronauts' chances of getting cancer a few %.

>>17405503
Lots of the world was neutral. Look up where third world comes from.

>>17410878
As promised. A compilation of sunrises and sunsets employing a variety of lenses. Sometimes the sun stays the same size as it approaches the horizon, sometimes, it appears to shrink. So either the sun changes its method of setting depending on how the event is being captured, or the method itself just changes how it appears.

Which sounds more likely to you? Here's one for free, flatheads. Call it "quantum optics" - depending on the method of observation, the sun either recedes to its "vanishing point" or it just zips out past the edge of your flat earth and ducks below the horizon until the observer stops observing.

>>17410999
Compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L7fTMxI4vk

>>17410922
Who did that analysis and where did they get the original image? Don't tell me you actually trusted someone else to do it for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs

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

>>17392456

I think you underestimate how paranoid Americans actually are towards other Americans. It's bred into them from a young age. They don't trust each other.

I'm not saying that being disrespectful to Americans, because I don't trust Americans either. There's something "fake" about them. Going to America is like entering some Stepford Wives reality. People are almost caricatures of acting the part of themselves.

>mfw I found out Americans aren't "acting" on TV and that's how they actually are irl

>>17411057
It's kind of a pop culture feedback loop. There's too many people out there utterly convinced they're the "protagonist" in some vast drama. They tailor their behavior based more on how they want to be perceived than what their personality actually is, although I'm not at all sure that's unique to the states.

And one of the biggest moon hoax "theorists" active today is from Australia.

>>17411085
Thought it was Kurt Kobain from the thumbnail.

I'm just gonna toss this out there - NASA's said in recent years that the radiation outside of the Earth's field would kill anyone who didn't have some seriously heavy duty shielding... and it's something that they just plain don't know how to do right now.

>>17411158
That's in regards to long-term missions like Mars and general long-term exploration. Anyone who says different is either uninformed or outright lying.

>>17410779
>proven wrong

Lol what are you talking about?

>>17410878
Your example doesn't work though.

You are arguing wide angle lenses and focusing on arbitrary points in the sky.
You then provide what you call "A great example" of how a sunset looks when not filming that arbitrary point in the sky.
But the example is pointless because it is using a completely different lens, which would produce a different result to a wide angle no matter where the focal point is.

>>17411158
[citation needed]

I am 100% sure you are misinterpreting something that was said, or just parroting bullshit you saw in a youtube video made by some tinfoil.

>>17411240
>I think it's fake because I saw a video with bubbles therefore they are under water!
You made a claim.
Someone showed you how they are not bubbles and explained why.

You basically ignored this, claimed you don't know what video you saw, and that it doesn't matter because you have seen other videos.

You tinfools are all the same. You don't want to admit you might be wrong so you just slide it under the rug.

>>17411253
So because he showed me a video that I didn't watch that proves that the video I did watch didn't obviously have bubbles in "space". That makes a lot of sense

>>17411276
>I believe there are bubbles in this space video
>I will not watch any video that proves otherwise
Good job showing how truly delusional you are

>>17411248
You should probably keep reading then.

>>17410999
>>17411001

I explained what was happening and provided a montage of sunsets recorded using different lenses and filming subjects in the posts above. If that isn't enough for you, then nothing ever will be.

>>17411276
>>17411457
As a point of fact, I went out and found the original, unedited video, took it to a website that lets you advance Youtube vids frame by frameI provided in >>17409721, then left it up to him whether or not he wanted to look.

He didn't, because he'd rather believe what someone else is telling him than look into it himself. Pretty much proves everything I already suspected about all these fervent "truth-seekers."

>>17411480
>>17411457
Well, I just watched the video which does nothing to address the videos I watched, just like I knew it wouldn't. So what's your point?

>>17411537
>>17411480
>>17411457
Also I'm pretty sure the video with the bubbles I watched was from the first space walk

>>17411466
You explained after you attempt to lie was called out.

>>17411552
>>17411537
>I don't even know what video I watched
>But I know it confirms my beliefs

>>17411651
I just told you it was the first space walk video

What the fuck? Can you read?

>>17411668
>I'm pretty sure the video with the bubbles I watched was from the first space walk
No. You don't really know, and you are now in full damage control to avoid shattering your delusions.

>>17392524
>this short video basically proves it!!!

hey, you're stupid

>>17392548
It's true, genius. Stop believing all of the silly conspiracy shit you hear and watch the news once in a while. The FBI needs access to one single iPhone and Apple won't do it for them.

>>17411691
No, I do know. But there is always the possibility that my memory isn't perfect so I cover all of my bases in case I was wrong so some retard like you doesn't go "hurr durr there was no bubbles, ur a liar that means NASA is always right"

Why would me thinking it's a different space walk shatter my "delusions" anyway? Even on the off chance it's not the right space walk Im remembering what effect would that have on the information that there was still bubbles in a NASA space walk video?

>>17393882
The thing is, nobody important actually believes the moon landing was faked, and suggesting so is extremely disrespectful to everyone involved in the Apollo missions. NASA doesn't owe these dipshits anything.

>>17411717
Lots of people believe the moon landing was fake.

Why are you lying like NASA?

>>17395869
oddly enough, they did miss the moon once, there were accidents too of course

but i guess that was just so it would be a more believable hoax, right?

>>17411703
>it's true because the news told me it is

>>17398181
You assholes understand that you are looking at a digital representation of the original photograph right? Good lord...

>>17411732
Why wouldn't they just use the origional image?

>>17411714
You keep making vague claims and "Covering all of my bases" so that no matter what video someone shows you to point out that it isn't bubbles, you can just say "well it wasn't that one, it was a different one! but I swear it's true!"

You have convinced yourself that you saw something and have decided this is evidence for your false beliefs, but you are afraid to even try and find that video to back up your beliefs.

>>17411746
Because you can;t upload film to the internet...

>>17411719
And thankfully those people don't go outside much and just spread their misinformation on the internet where other tinfoil hat wearers (like yourself and the others in this thread) will gobble it up.

>>17411847
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3OUTa8RhZvI

There's the video that I was oh so terrified of finding. You can clearly see bubbles (in space!!) at 9:24 and 9:32

why would earth be flat? seriously. literally every other celestial body is a sphere, why would we be special?

>>17411895
Literally the same thing as the other video the tripfag showed you.
Hope you can deal with how wrong you were.

Why do NASA shills think they can make people unsee the truth?

The cat's out of the bag

>>17411923
So what are the bubbles?

What am I wrong about?

>>17411928
There are no bubbles you fucking idiot

>>17411972
There clearly are though

You can find them right where I said they are

>>17411998
No, there really aren't

>>17411928
>>17411998
film grain
video compression effects
bits of debris

The fact that they don't behave at all like bubbles should be your first clue that they aren't bubbles.
But you don't want to accept that, so you'll dance around the fact that these "bubbles" are moving erratically throughout the screen.

>>17412008
Yeah, there really are

>>17412016
The bubbles in the video I posted acted exactly like bubbles

>>17412183
No they don't

You have to come up with ridiculous explanations like "the water is swirling like a vortex", just to try and make sense of it.

You aren't looking for the truth. You aren't willing to consider alternate explanations. All you've done is jumped on a conclusion, and refused to listen to anything that didn't support that conclusion.

>>17412183
No, there aren't. You're delusional and imagining things that aren't there.

>>17412206
I've listened. I don't know why you believe bubbles go in a perfectly straight line when there's movement in the water

>>17412218
They're clearly on the video at the times I pointed out

>>17412258
Water that is moving the "bubble" around, but not the astronaut or any other props?

How do you explain the movement of the flag in this video? Shouldn't it be swaying around slowly along with the water?
https://youtu.be/gMxQEHfU6hM

Your argument doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You also fail to show that they aren't imperfections in the video itself, or the result of compression/tracking.

You've hastily jumped to a conclusion, and now you're too conceited to come back and deal with all the evidence.

>>17412291
What's easier to move? A solid human being or an air bubble? What kind of argument is that? A child can figure that out

He's waving the flag around. Do you think you can't make things move underwater?

Why would NASA be using such a shitty camera that can't record clear picture? Why does this "tracking" look exactly like a bubble?

Your arguments literally makes no sense

>>17412371
>Why would NASA be using such a shitty camera that can't record clear picture?
Why would NASA leave a plainly obvious bubble in the footage?

>>17412403
Because people are so brainwashed to believe what they're told that it obviously doesn't matter. People will make arguments that don't even make sense to defend people they don't even know because they don't want to believe they've been lied to. You're a prime example. They'll just keep lying and most people will believe it

Oh well, doesn't really matter. Believe what you want to believe I guess

>>17412436
>NASA is pulling off a massive conspiracy to trick people into thinking space travel is possible
>All the space faring nations of the world are in on this conspiracy, including entire governments and branches of academia (spanning universities worldwide)
>despite this, NASA didn't bother to double check their video editing

Somehow, this makes sense to you
What is the point of arguing with an idiot?

>>17412457
Like I said, believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me

Also you can't be "in on" a conspiracy if you don't know it's a lie. So the people who create and distribute this false information are in on it, not the people who parrot what they've been told

If I'm such an idiot then don't respond to me

>>17412436
>because people are so brainwashed
oh the irony

>>17412506
I'm curious now, how deep do you think it goes?

Do you think it's impossible to go to space? Because that would mean millions of academics are actively lying to us. And these are academics who are working independently in countries across the world. If the math didn't check out, everybody would know.

>>17412436
>Because people are so brainwashed to believe what they're told that it obviously doesn't matter
Huh, so exactly like you?

>People will make arguments that don't even make sense to defend people they don't even know because they don't want to believe they've been lied to.
Whatever you say, Mr. "bubbles in space".

>You're a prime example. They'll just keep lying and most people will believe it.
I guess the tinfoil hats have done their job then. You've officially been lied to, and now you believe it.

>>17412507
What's ironic?

>>17412516
Obviously I don't know specifically who knows what, but if people are just working off of how they believe the physics would work without any practical experience with space then they aren't really lying, they're just mislead

>>17412540
Hmmm...except I don't believe whatever I'm told just because it's a large scale lie, so I don't see how that's "exactly like me"

Obviously the bubbles aren't in space, it's filmed in a water tank, but you knew that, you're just trying to derail or discredit me

Once again, I don't believe whatever I'm told by mainstream media without a doubt unlike the majority of the population
>Hurr durr tinfoil hat!!
Good one

>>17412541
You're ironic.

You call other people brainwashed yet you're the one who's been brainwashed by some retarded conspiracy theory.

You accuse others of making arguments that don't make sense and then talk about bubbles in space.

You accuse others of not being able to accept that they're being lied to meanwhile you're the one who's being lied to by some conspiracist, and you believe them.

If that's not ironic I don't know what is.

>>17412554
It's pretty evident you believe in whatever your told based on the fact that someone in their basement told you the moon landing was fake and you gobbled it up.

>>17412541
>but if people are just working off of how they believe the physics would work without any practical experience
are you actually brain damaged?

Do you have even a basic understanding of mathematics? It all happens in theory.

If somebody says "1 + 1 = 3", you can easily prove them right or wrong.

If somebody says "this formula is what allowed our rocket to reach outer space", you can easily prove them right or wrong.

Is any of this getting through to you?

>>17412567
Do you know what brainwashing is? It's systematically conditioning someone to believe something. So the large scale of space related things in movies, video games, tv, books, magazines would be considered brainwashing.

Do you really not understand the bubbles thing or are you just acting stupid? They aren't in space, they're in a water tank.

>>17412573
If I believed in whatever I'm told why wouldn't I believe NASA since I've been told since I was 5 that we went to space. I mean these videos that question NASA show the exact footage that NASA showed and points out the inconsistencies of the story that are clearly evident

>>17412584
Yeah, except we've never been to space so these theories aren't proven. And what theories there are about movement in "space" don't match up with the footage we've been shown. Why are you acting like I didn't understand this? I clearly said there's no practical experience, that would make it theoretical

>>17403757
ok

>>17412629
They're in space

There are no bubbles in space

Ergo, they are not bubbles

>>17412649
There were bubbles

There are no bubbles in space

Ergo, they are not in space

>>17412660
But they were in space, ergo everything you just said is objectively false.

>>17412629
Ah yes, the so called "inconsistencies"

>there's no stars in the photo is was faked g-guis!!

Two words. MOON REFLECTORS. You can go home, conspiratards.

>>17412661
Except they weren't in space

>>17412668
That amongst others, yeah

>>17412682
You're joking right? You don't actually think tha since there's no stars in the photos means it was faked right?

>>17412686
What did I just say? I'm not saying that conclusively proves it was fake, I said that's one of numerous things that seems off

>in b4 hurr durr cameras bro!!
or
>but daylight bro!!

It's always something different

>>17412721
No, it's really always the same thing.

You are aware the brighter an object is the shorter the exposure time required to capture it on camera?

You are aware that the earth and the moon are many many times brighter than the stars surrounding it are?

You are aware that this is the reason that there are no stars in many of the photos in space?

>>17412786
If you couldn't tell from my post, I've already heard this before

It doesn't even matter if that can be explained or not with the amount of other things that are wrong

>>17412807
I could tell from your post that you didn't think those arguments were legitimate, so I thought I'd educate you a little just to make sure.

>>17392456
Soviet disinfo to discredit NASA, to which all kinds of fucking tools started adding to

Besides, nobody should give a flying fuck about it in this glorious year of 2016

File: lolflattoronto.gif (3MB, 2083x3811px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2083x3811px

>>17411647
Nope! I told everyone exactly what I was providing and provided it. The only people in the sun discussion who've either misrepresented themselves out of either ignorance or an a desire to mislead have been people providing links to *a* sunset without further information and saying "explain this!"

I explained it. Now have a wonderful day and, as always, go fuck yourself.

>>17411746
>>17411852
But what you yourself *can* do is find the original scan on NASA's web gallery and perform your own check. It avoids any additional digital artifacts introduced from looking at what are, essentially, copies of copies of copies.

>>17411714
Let's take it one bit at a time, then. Find the video and tell us where we can find it, and we'll see if it holds up.

Just so you know, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here, but the first three links I saw concerning bubbles on space walks were for the first Chinese EVA(spacewalk) from back in 2007. It happened on Shinzhou 7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_7

>>17393818
deliver for fucks sake OP, if this is true, you get killed until dawn anyways.

>>17398893
yeah. next time they should start in antarctica, not from the equator so you can fly over the belt!

>>17399071
where are those claims facts? where are your sources?
i don't support the hoax or the landing, because i frankly do not care, but you are definitely an idiot.

>>17399197
>>17399283
a body of matter (mostly large) is also called a mass.
so you can say brain mass if you want to express the intelligence of someone. it is called a synecdoche.
Go ask your first grade teacher about your language before you hurt yourself.

>>17399057
>sun isnt visible
if you see the earth in any video from outer space you will not see the sun, because it would be directly behind you shining on your back and the earth.
>stars arent visible
do you know what white balace and exposure is?
have you ever made a photo into a strong light source?

>>17400094
fucking space niggers
never should have allowed them to crash on the moon

>>17406693
actually shithead, you didn't understand the message he tried to send with this comedic answer.

File: flat earth.jpg (419KB, 950x783px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 950x783px

>>17406669
pictures with lines are not facts or proof.

>>17407897
>Stanley Kubrick admitted filming the hoax
Last week I admitted in a bar that I had sex with three models at the same time.
And guess what? This was a lie to get attention from other people.
And guess another thing. Other people can lie too to get attention.

Also Stanley Kubriks moon landing would probably be better than the shitty one we have now.

>>17411895
Ok, I've watched the video in its entirety and before we move any further, let me establish a a few things I hope we can agree on:

1) Bubbles should always travel "upward" in the direction of lessening pressure.

2) Pressure in a liquid decreases as depth decreases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_pressure_variation

3) Objects immersed in water experience "drag" and decelerate in the absence of a source of propulsion. If that force is the result of buoyancy, they should follow roughly the same path as an air bubble.

What follows is a detailed list of objects I spotted dispersing from the vicinity of Steve Bowen as filmed by Al Drew and remote cameras on the ISS. The majority of the objects in question start around 9:24 and continue through around 9:42. I'm providing the below link for anyone who would like to follow along and examine these objects frame by frame.

More in my next post.