What would it take to convince you that we actually went to the moon?

A photo that wasn't just some cgi fake.

Just one single photo. Why can't moonlanders do that?

>>17816474
how can you tell a real photo from a cgi fake photo?

>>17816484
Well obviously we didn't go to the moon, so NASA photos are fake.

Dumbass.

>>17816472
Take me there

>>17816497
>all you did was drug me colourblind and take me to the Nevada desert
>hey what are you doing with that gun

>>17816491
But where is the proof that we didn't go to the moon? You're getting your logic mixed up.

>>17816472
If we really did go to moon six times why can't we do it again? Also to convince me that we actually went to moon you gotta take me there.

>>17816645
Where's the proof that we did go to the moon?

>>17816652
Its very expensive. Theres no real point in going back again. Why waste the money to prove a point to shitheads like you who will never believe it anyway?

>>17816658
If there's no real point in going back why did they go there six times? Also, if going there in 1969 was easy, in 2016 it should be really, really easy. Why don't we have commercial space tours already?

The moon isn't even real. It's a false projection created by ancient advanced societies to damage evil forces even at night. And then used by corrupt elites to bewilder and control their sheeple.
You fools.

>>17816655
The photos, duh. You're trying to refute the validity of the evidence just because you "feel like" it's CGI faked.

>>17816472
Only way I would believe it is if I was brought to the moon myself.

>>17816705
But the photos are fake. All photos they took should've been destroyed due to the radiation.

>>17816472
What would it take to convince you of anything? If they wanted you to believe in the moon, they'd put you in a virtual simulation of a space trip.

>>17816722
How does a VIRTUAL simulation proves anything?

>>17816472
we did go to the moon. the footage was just faked to make it look more impressive. if we'd never even gone some other country would have called the us out on it by now

>>17816775
Why'd they fake the footage if they actually went on it?

>>17816788
because 1969 moon footage would look like shit and not have nearly the same patriotic effects that crisp, clean, fake moon footage would

>>17816908
You know this, how?

>>17816716
>All photos they took should've been destroyed due to the radiation.
You realize that people successfully took photos of the Elephant Foot shortly after the Chernobyl disaster, right?

>>17816908
Analog playback and traditional photography were damn fine in the 60s

Take a selfie on the moon

Canadianfag and I know we went to the moon. Why is this a common meme among Americans to not believe it? This feels exactly like ancient people believing the Earth is flat and denying scientific facts. The rest of the world doesn't care about the moon and still acknowledge we went there. Why are all counter-proofs so lazy and bad? I need answers.

>>17817412
those photos are clearly fake

>>17817412
The elephant for photo was taken from a mirror in a separate room

>arguing with conspiracy theorists

>>17817451
Prove me wrong, lil dude

>>17817461
That's just incorrect.

http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-chernobyl-disaster-1986/

>>17817472
prove that's chernobyl. you can't.
fake.

File: Corbis-SU005789.jpg (48KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 320x480px

>>17817472
Chernobyl never happened idiot. Do your homework kiddo, then com back and play with the adults.

>>17817483
That isn't how burden of proof works, ado

>>17817494
lol

>>17817472
>after the radiation weakened
Thanks for confirming what I said, the first elephant foot photo was taken from mirror in other room

>>17817507
And yet the Elephant Foot today is still more radioactive than the lunar surface

File: 173175.jpg (9KB, 270x179px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 270x179px

>>17817513
There is no moon retard. Have you ever been there? Of course not, because it doesn't exist.

>>17817443
I wish I knew. There's the old stuff like photos and movies, but there's also the mythbusters where they busted the dumb shit, as well as tested the reflective laser panel they left up there and had a response.
We have colleges here in which you can pay for a doctorate in a school that not only has no accreditation but also adhere to creationism and biblical doctrine. We have people who can, with a straight face, say that they believe the world is 6500 years old. And we as Americans can't stop them. And we as Americans let these cretins breed and vote and arm themselves.

>>17816472
Nothing short of walking on it myself.

File: 1398464882739.jpg (62KB, 390x285px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 390x285px

>>17816683
Most plausible moon theory I've heard yet

File: 1449345186013.jpg (99KB, 640x921px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x921px

>>17816472
Nothing could convince me that man ever went to the moon.
It's antisemitic to believe a Nazi could have built the Saturn V rockets.

>>17816504
>hey what are you doing with that gun
What use is there on the moon for a gun?
There's no gravity, the bullets would just float away.

>>17817526
And this ladies and gentlemen is prime example of board with lowest iq /x/

>>17816472
dozens of soils tests performed by universities in multiple, unaligned nations, lunar laser ranging with an array on the surface which can still be used to this day, and photos

oh, wait

File: IMG_20151204_091815.jpg (295KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 720x1280px

If they had brought back some of that fine moon cheese.

It's really something I'll have to see for myself.

Nothing because I know.

>>17816491
>the image is fake because we didnt go to the moon
>we didnt go to the moon because the image is fake

>>17816716
>photos should have been destroyed due to the radiation
What? What unstable nucleus exists on the moon that gives off such radiation? Also, do you realize any type of light is radiation?

Even if you believe they could "fake" all of this photographic evidence in the 60 (which is either retarded or intellectual dishonest),

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums


even if you believe in the fucking HUGE conspiracy that would be needed to "fake" it (and why would the russian have confirmed it, if they were on the opposing end?),
even if you dont trust what you see through a telescope, there is still physical evidence like moon rocks and stuff they left there (for example a mirror that can reflect lasers)

Head trauma :^)

Fisrt comment on 4chan

>>17816472
you are a victim to sandbagging.

>>17818503
NASA takes a lot of government money. They had prototype CGI before the public got it. Very advanced.

>>17817526
ive never been to Idaho.

>>17818735
I also had the prototype CGI back then. But I had it before NASA. I used it to fool you guys into thinking the government is real. Still works today apparently

>>17816491

all the photos of Jesus have been cgi or pig disgusting, yet she was real (the first transgender)

Myquestion is, how could Jesus could have been the first transgender yet Muhammad was the first Homosexual? simple! Jesus was asexual, just like God is, well no, God had a wife but he killed her (it is a seecret) so he could chase Mary.

True story, Hapas have the largest Dicks and blondes go cray cray 4 them.

The moon landing was so obviously faked I thought it was common knowledge that Stanely Kubrick filmed it for them. Aside from that you really have no idea what the moon even is. It's transparent, self luminescent, has "lunar waves", it could even be multi-dimensional. There's no way someone could just "land" on it.

>>17818856
>makes a bunch of claims that he doesnt understand
>concludes it does not have physical properties

>>17816472
I personally fall into the camp that NASA did go to the moon in 1969 - I'm satisfied by the body of evidence that exists to back this up.

HOWEVER - I am of the opinion that the footage was faked - pre-taped beforehand to account for transmission issues, lighting difficulties, etc. It would be pretty disappointing if we were to land two guys on the moon and the cameras were out.

And also according to the aborigines people the moon wasn't there a long time ago. So what the fuck even is it?

File: Moon- remastered.jpg (533KB, 3000x2004px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 3000x2004px

>>17818891
Does the moon appear like this in the southern hemisphere?

Or do Australians see a totally different image?

>>17818865
Pleb

>>17818900
It appears to have the same face anywhere in the world but depending on where you are it just rotates like a disc.

>>17816683
this sounds legit

>>17818901
at least im not ugly and stupid

IF the moon is physical it must be crystaline or something. It's no way some gray giant rock.

File: 1465938592612.jpg (204KB, 731x960px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 731x960px

>>17816683

>>17818907
No matter which way you turn the moon, it always shows the same face?

lmfao must be a coincidence

>>17818923
>the moon is a big salt

>>17816472
You can only believe what you see with your own eyes the rest is here say .

>>17818927
yes but rotated.

>>17818930
>science was used to create everything inside your house, including the house
>people still refute against science

>>17818742
that's because it doesn't exist

>>17818927
So you're saying the moon isn't a ball anon? :^)

>>17816472
a moon and a rocket

>>17816472

A video time lapse of the astronauts in shuttle leaving earth and landing on the moon

>>17816676
>logic does not convince the brainwashed masses

Honestly, the reason I don't think we've went there was when I did a lot of research for a college paper several years ago.

Reading notes from Von Braun, the leading :rocket scientist" of the era who essentially enabled the US to "win the space race" plainly stated that the technology required, not only to leave earth's gravity well but also reach the moon, would require a rocket roughly the size of the empire state building (actually bigger if I recall), and that the shielding necessary to protect from the radiation belts and space debris (micro-meteors, etc) that would shred through the vehicle during its extended journey, would be weight-prohibitive at best and increase the required fuel weight exponentially.

So if the actual design engineer knew it couldn't happen, I'm supposed to believe that a few second stringers cobbled together a working space vehicle so much smaller and lighter, even without any significant advance in techneology by 1969?

I don't think so.

Have we orbited the earth? Yes. Many times.
Have we easily made trips to low earth orbit and back? Yes, many times and we even have a space station in LEO. All of this I find quite possible and have no doubts, due to the tech I know we have.

But making it all the way to the moon, that many times, and yet they find excuses NOT to go back, even though we should have the tech, at a much lower cost ration NOW, that existed in 69....

Look at the reported ratings of the moon landings, and how they steadily went down. They stopped the "moon missions" because the pubic stopped giving a shit, and it was becoming a waste of time and money to keep producing them. It was easier to rest on their laurels....

>>17818900
I have seen the same face in three different continents, but just like the anon said, it's rotated.

additionally, one of the refutations is "the reflectors on the moon!!! OF COURSE we been there!!!!"

Well, I do not deny they are there and signals/light/whatever can be bounced back. I think it is absolutely possible to send a smaller, unmanned rocket containing tech there that can be remotely planted, manipulated, etc. I still doubt that a man has been there and back (alive anyway).

Also, people point to "the photos, man! prove they are fake/real! pro-tip: you can't!"

this is a topic that can be done to death. for every photo that is "proved fake/possess impossible anomalous artifacts/whatever" there will be an outcry how "IT IS REAL! YOU'RE PSYCHO!"

again, you can't defeat the brainwashed masses with any kind of logic or proof. They will hold onto that shit with a deathgrip like a fundy christian to his KJV.

when it comes down to it, it is all a matter of faith, even thought the atheistic fedora-tippers will cringe at the word. People have FAITH that there was a big bang, evolution, and that we went to the moon. They claim to have "proof" that is indisputable "because science!" despite the fact there actually is no tangible evidence that CAN be proved and presented without a shadow of a doubt.

^ I commend you anon for trying to get people to think but I'm starting to wonder the same thing that it is just simply too hard to change peoples worldview. They're happy being brainwashed. But maybe it's better that way.

>>17819113
Anon, Apollo didn't leave earth's gravity. The moon orbit's the earth because it is well within earths gravity.

>>17819179
>ignoring the point
>not knowing the difference between LEO and OEO

>>17819200
The sun moon and stars are just a tad bit closer than you realize.

>>17819200
The point is that Werner Von Braun new perfectly well that the Saturn V was capable of reaching the moon, and your attempts to claim otherwise are dishonest in the very least.

File: image.png (57KB, 470x414px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 470x414px

This thread is shit senpai

>>17819237
>he said, she said
i'm not going to spend and research time to pull out my notes, attributions, references, and quotations for some retard on /x/ just to prove my point. if you REALLY care, you'll be able to find the info yourself, but truth is, you'll never look for it.

>>17819230
>flat earther

File: vonbraun_saturnv.jpg (16KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 350x263px

>>17819246
Here's a picture of Wehrner Von Braun. He's standing in front of a Saturn V, the rocket he helped design that put astronauts on the moon.

>inb4 it's a cgi picture.

File: 6516516515631.jpg (21KB, 460x523px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 460x523px

>>17819261
>implying that what I said was flase, because picture exists of said guy with a rocket
faulty logic, pablo
>assuming the only defense of pictiures is "CGI, MAN!"

>>17816676
Because it's a lot of fucking money that nobody cares enough to spend. The only reason we did it was to beat the russians you fucking twat...

File: 4551541+_65a05bb7beb18f334cc0e0e05172a646.jpg (15KB, 300x197px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x197px

>>17819230
>>17819237
>>17819261

see
>>17819113
>>logic does not convince the brainwashed masses

>>17819246
OK, I found it.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-great-1952-space-program-453511252

It comes from a speculative piece in Collier's magazine. It was describing a single stage rocket carrying an entire payload, not a multi-stage rocket only delivering a small craft. And it was using 1952 rocket technology, not 1969 rocket technology.

That was easy enough to debunk.

>>17819113
>it would be cheaper to go to the moon now

Sure. Everything was more expensive in the 1960s. Going to the movies. Filling up a gas tank. Buying a house...

>all these morons getting trolled this easily

holy shit summer has arrived

>>17819284
>easy enough to debunk
only if you were right

>>17816472
The episode of MythBusters about this was good enough for me lolol

>>17819113
its all theory though. It may point in the right direction but the end result may still be different from the expected outcome from the theory.
Even the scientists today that are on the cutting edge of their topic of study don't really know whats going on.

>>17817443
>feels exactly like ancient people believing the Earth is flat and denying scientific facts
except even ancient people knew the world was round

>>17817494
every """""""""argument""""""""" you've made thus far has been "IT DON'T REAL!!!11!!1!"
kill yourself you retarded mouth breather

>>17816472
For us to go back. To prove that the trip really is possible in an age where it is nearly impossible to BS a trip to the moon. Pics of the stuff we left there would just be icing on the cake, I just want definitive, modern proof that a moon landing is actually possable.

>>17819782
Yep and "we" never will because you can't actually land on the moon.

>>17817443

Candianfag here and NO.

The so-called counter-proofs are not lazy at all. Sounds like you got lazy in your research or you are trolling. I feel like everybody on this board should know FOR A FACT that the whole thing was a lie, a 'hollywood' production to trick the masses. They are working toward a very specific plot line and have been fooling us with this government-science and sci-fi nonsense to condition us to accept the next phase of the deception.

'Nuff said I think?

Or not:

http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.V2VHtPmU2Hs

(Go thru some of the text and photos down this page... Also, the fake bootprints on the 'moon' even though the boot(s) tread were of a different design... the shadows facing different directions... the camera-aiming reticles/crosshairs/reference points blocked by items added later in post-production such as a flag or a radio [the plus signs imprinted on the photos should always be in front of everything]... the 'slow motion' footage played at 2x speed show normal earthly movements... the wires holding up the actor-nauts making it appear as if 'floating'...etc...)

Smh at /x/ unless these threads are trolls.

>>17819113

it was also stated that to be protected from the harsh radiation/effects of space, the astronauts (whether individually or in a shuttle) would need to be shielded and surrounded by AT LEAST 4 FOOT THICK LEAD ARMOR. Did those flimsy fake suits have this? Nope. Did the shuttle or any lander or capsule? Nope.

you cant land on a hologram

>>17817657

yeah, the bullets would float away rapidly right into that lunar alien scumbag's head if need be... U-S-A!!!

>>17816676
There's no point in going back because, as anon said, we've already been there 6 times. Any scientific research we'd have any reason to perform on the moon/using lunar materials has already been done.

Also I don't think you understand how "scientific progress" works. It doesn't simply increase with time, we have to devote time, money, research, and energy into it. We're still using essentially the same shuttle program from the 70's to launch satellites and supplies for the ISS into space. Only recently with SpaceX has real progress into spacecraft been made.

hhff

>>17816472
>What would it take to convince you that we actually went to the moon?

Sorry but can't happen. Ruin someone's trust once and it's gone. Every time I hear space program or NASA this or that my resistance to this bullshit just gets stronger.

>>17816683

This.

>>17817544
>let these cretins breed and vote and arm themselves

You do know guns overpower words, right?

>>17816788
cuz fallen angel technology littered all about...

>>17823582
Damn you're good

>>17819113
The pubic never give a shit.

File: moon_dream.jpg (372KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 500x501px

>>17816472
Possibly a private company making the trip.

The Google Lunar XPRIZE was announced in 2007. It would have awarded the first company $20 million to land on the moon, travel 500 meters and transmit hi-def video by 2012. Second prize for the next company to do it would get $5 million. No one got it so the prize dropped to $15 million if they did it by 2014. No one got it so they extended it to 2015. Still no one was close so now it is extended to December 2017. *SPOILER ALERT* : It doesn't matter how many times they extend it. IT WON"T HAPPEN!

The other way I might buy it is if they let citizens see the landing sites via giant telescopes like they claimed back in 2002: STILL WAITING!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1414144/Worlds-biggest-telescope-to-prove-Americans-really-walked-on-Moon.html

>>17816472
Maybe if they could bring back some rocks, or take some pictures or something. It would have been best if they did a live broadcast at the time. The russians confirming it would be the final nail in the coffin, though, since they had the most motivation to beat us there. I HIGHLY doubt they would back U.S. up on it if they weren't absolutely sure we had done it.

Oh, wait? All of those happened? Even the Russians admitting it? WELL LOOKY THERE, WE MUST HAVE BEEN TO THE FUCKING MOON, THEN!

>>17816652
Because we're focused on Mars now mate.

>>17819179
and this whole world is trumen show

To me the most obvious evidence that the US went to the moon is that the soviet didn't claim that it was doctored footage or faked. And also the mirrors we regularly bounce lasers off that where put there by one of the expeditions.

>>17825868
>soviet didn't claim that it was doctored footage or faked.

implying that the cold war wasn't a thing

>And also the mirrors we regularly bounce lasers off that where put there by one of the expeditions.

as if those couldn't have been placed without humans...

>>17825166
>Maybe if they could bring back some rocks
Like USSR did using robots (Luna 16)
> a live broadcast at the time
From a studio on earth
>russians confirming it
NASA and the Soviet space agency worked together behind the scenes. See: Apollo–Soyuz Test Project
>>17825868
Many Soviets believed the Apollo landings were faked but the Great Grain Robbery kept them quiet. The Soviets also sent mirrors to the moon without sending men.

>>17816472
NASA not losing the original fucking footage for a start.

>>17819113

>increase the required fuel weight exponentially

Are you retarded? How does extra weight increase fuel requirements exponentially? Sure, it would increase the fuel required, but this amount would not continue to increase.

Or -- just maybe -- you don't actually understand what "exponentially" means.

Did this essay of your receive good marks, or did your abysmal writing drag your down?

File: 1364176035474.jpg (71KB, 600x436px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 600x436px

>>17817657
All of you are a bunch of kids. a gun wouldn't just "float away". it wouldnt fire in the first place without an oxygen atmosphere

Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill.

Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't

>>17827887
Humans are mentally ill. Prove me wrong.

Pro tip: I'm a fucking rock.

>>17827842
>wants the last word
>shitposts with ad hominem attack
Go back to /b/ faggot

>>17825930
>implying the cold war wasn't a thing

No, he's rather implying quite clearly it was a thing. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. were rivals. If the U.S. had faked the moon landing, the U.S.S.R would have known and called them out on it.

>>17827880
>guns wouldn't fire without an oxygen atmosphere.

It's not like lighting a match. The explosives in the bullet casing has all the oxygen it needs.

The Soviets tested a 23 mm autocannon on one of their space stations.

>>17816472
*Aliens*

/sci/ here
I don't understand the moon landing conspiracy. All the maths is freely available for you to look over and decide for yourself as to whether it was technologically feasible or not. I recommend starting here

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
Will tell you how fast the rocket needs to travel in order to escape Earth's gravity

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Will tell you how much fuel you need to reach that speed

This conspiracy theory slightly annoys me because it's always "hurr it just can't be done" with no maths to back up this statement. It's is plainly obvious to me that moon landing deniers just don't understand how space travel works.

>>17826833
The Soviets had no qualms in broadcasting America's captured U2 spy plane to the world. To say that Russia, America's mortal enemy was in on it too is full tinfoil. As >>17825868 said the lack of Soviet denial is the fatal flaw in the moon landing conspiracy.

>>17818498
funny how this never got a response.

>>17818939
Oh shit he knows!

>>17816705
I refuse to believe that we did simply BECAUSE all we have to go on is photographic and film evidence that our government has provided

these types of things are just too easy to fake, and it makes logical sense considering the political climate of the time and our leaders likely tried to go to the moon but couldnt so they decided to fake it to boost morale and fooling the world into thinking we were more technologically advanced than we really were at the time

>>17826833
>From a studio on earth
You don't know much about how radio waves, do you? I'm no expert, but I know that to communicate into space, you have to use VHF (Very High Frequency) radio waves, which do not bounce off the ionosphere. What this means, is that using VHF to communicate can only work within short distances on the surface of the earth. Another anon posted not long ago describing how it works better than I could, but basically, if you are receiving a transmission on a VHF, the origin is either really close by to you, or from space. The live feed of the apollo mission was broadcast on VHF, and people were receiving it at the same time all over the world, meaning it HAD to have come from space.
>NASA and the Soviet space agency worked together behind the scenes
There is no evidence to support this statement. In fact, evidence both solid and circumstantial contradicts this. Why would the Soviets work with NASA on a hoax to make everyone think the U.S. got to the moon first after all that time, money, and lives spent in COMPETITION with them? GTFO

>>17828142
Okay, how about somebody from NASA discussing the Van Allen belts. Here's a video, go to the 3:00 mark and listen. He's discussing the dangers of the Van Allen belts, and says something like "we must solve these problems before we send people through this region of space."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

So, this is not a conspiracy theorist talking, but a NASA engineer.

if they brought back rocks from the moon, then i would believe it

What I personally would need to believe it?

I'd either need to go there myself or to talk to someone I trusted who went there. If the latter was to occur said person would need to be able to answer my questions in a way I felt was satisfactory and I would probably have some hard ones prepared in advance.

That being said, as I read this I realize that this is a slippery slope. I haven't BEEN to New Zealand but I'm pretty sure mankind has been there so maybe my logic is faulty.

>>17829151
i havent raped anyone, but maybe i will.
same logic

>>17821592
How do we know you're not a shill for the government to cover up the fact that we have landed on the Moon already?

File: image-of-Apollo-11-and-van-allen-belts.gif (281KB, 1000x731px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1000x731px

>>17828652
1) The Apollo mission trajectories were specifically charted to avoid the worst of the Van Allen belts. Pic related.

>The radiation belts vary in altitude over various parts of the earth and are absent over the north and south magnetic poles.

2) It was a calculated (perhaps foolish) risk that paid off. Their thinking was basically if they go fast enough, the radiation won't have time to penetrate their minimal shielding with enough particles to really mess with health.

>The small amount of time spent in earth orbit and the rapid traverse of the radiation belts during Apollo missions have minimized astronaut radiation dose from the remaining Starfish electrons.

Even then, they outfitted the astronauts with MANY sensors.

>To allow accurate determination of radiation exposure of the crewman, each carries a personal radiation dosimeter and three passive dosimeters. The PRD provides visual read-out of accumulated radiation dose to each crewman as the mission progresses...The passive dosimeters contain lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimetry powder, nuclear emulsions, neutron-dosimetry foils, and foils for detection of high-atomic-weight cosmic particles. These detector materials are analyzed after each mission, and an accurate determination of the radiation dose to various portions of the body (ankle, thigh, and chest) is facilitated. In addition, the passive dosimeter provides detailed information on the types of radiation to which each astronaut is exposed.

And they found the levels of radiation astronauts are exposed to (in calm times, no Apollo mission flew during large solar events) was greatly overestimated. You can see the radiation readings in the pdf.

>Radiation doses to Apollo crewmen have been significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States.

>>17829392
Aaaand forgot the link.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

>>17816472
Access to the lower levelz of the lunar operations command center and access to all the cool gadgetry.

>>17816472
They would have to fly me there and let me walk around.

But considering flight is a huge conspiracy in itself, I guess they could never prove it, because it's obviously fake.

How can we fly to the moon when we can't evne fly on earth?

File: images (1).png (2KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 259x194px

>>17828153

Wake up sheeple! This entire time you've been brainwashed! The US Government don't want you to know they sent a man on the moon! They used reverse psychology and showed you the real footage interspersed with edited ones to throw you off guard! They want you to believe the moon landings were never real in the first place!

File: shill.jpg (10KB, 233x216px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 233x216px

>>17829541

>>17829698
>>17829699
Look how they refuted this with only reaction images, only a shill would do that!

>>17817494
kek

favorite post ITT

>>17816472
Some form of evidence, like photos or maybe a video. If we went to the moon, that shit should be broadcast on TV.

Wait a minute...

File: 3.png (4KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 128x128px

>>17829701
>namefagging

An explanation based in reality of how we got humans past the Van Allen belt when we still cannot do that today

>>17830548
>when we still cannot do that today
[citation needed]

>>17830745
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

>>17818900
The same part of the moon faces the Earth literally all the time, with only very slight variance, there's a distinct "dark" side of the moon that never faces he Earth. It's called Tidal locking.

>>17830548
Literally ten posts above yours.

>>17829392
>>17829397

>>17830751
That video doesn't say we can't do it today.

This is a different craft to the Apollo ones. it uses different technology. The guy says they need to test to see if it can go through the Van Allen belt, which makes perfect sense.
They can make assumptions based on previous data, but they are going to want to test and make absolute certain that the computers and other technology (not to mention the people) are completely protected.

This is like asking why they crash test new cars, because they have crash tested a car before and know what happens. Things change, new things need to be tested and you can't just rely on the old data.

Thanks whoever posted the van allan belt post for me.. also being on the dark side of the moon has NOTHING to do with avoiding being cooked by the van allan belt

>>17828652
Here's a summary of the video
>I'm totally a NASA engineer guys and it's impossible to go into space because of radiation
>provides exactly zero credentials

Couldn't this be easily proved or disproved with a powerful enough telescope?

The flag and footprints are supposedly still there
>>17830751
>all those dislikes
>intothetrashitgoes.jpg

File: 575aeba3ea11e9ad2a928d81e879a7ac4e8ea987a3632d9cfae16d0ea960a469.jpg (47KB, 625x433px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 625x433px

>>17818923
>Earth is a giant green rock
>Mars is a giant red rock
>Venus is a giant yellow rock
>Mercury is a giant black rock
>Pluto is a giant white rock
>The Moon cannot be a giant rock because color

>>17827880
>>17828084
Well, i think he really ment, that hes just shot in the nevada desert, youknow.

>>17830751
I love how moonhoaxers and flatearthers take one line out of context, misunderstand it, then think it's meaningful.

>>17828004
Araki pls stop shitposting

>>17829419
You know the scary thing? There might actually be people out there who believe this.
For what it's worth I think we went there but not with the tech they've shown. The lunar lander is made of Alfoil and masking tape for fuck sake. They can't go back until disclosure, otherwise they'd have to admit they went in a tr3b

Find me one person in the field of aeronautics who says it is possible for humans to get past the van allan belt. 4chan has a bad enough reputation as it is but the troll fags are the reason this place will never have a half decent post

You're all ignoring the fact the only mission out of low earth orbit occurred over 50 years ago and not have even been attempted since but sure we can get past the Van Allen belt

Fyi at the end of the video they show a LinkedIn s website specifically the Orion Project section but sure that wasn't an official NASA release you people are literally an argument for eugenics

File: No Special Effects Necessary.gif (3MB, 636x357px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 636x357px

This is the real footage of the Apollo lunar module taking off, and some people really believe it.

>>17830787


If you have even a basic comprehension of the English language then yes it does

>>17816472
I already believe it, so...

>>17831571
Sad but true never mind that there would be a blast crater and scorch marks not to mention a massive dust cloud.

Also we're on that tiny ass module did they put the moon rover I've heard the argument that it was collapsible which is of course absurd but let's assume it was in fact collapsible I'm wondering since we've gotten so many breakthroughs in consumer technology from the space program why they dropped the ball on that collapsible automobile techno imagine the Practical and environmental applications for it.

And I have yet to see one person explain how anyone nevermind an untrained photographer could take perfectly framed photos each and every time with chest mounted fixed View Camera even the man who invented the cameras used on the moon mission said that those shots were impossible to be taken from where they were affixed to the space suits

the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets. Otherwise it would have made a landing roughly comparable to a piano falling out of a high-rise apartment building.
But, you say, isn't the gravitational pull of the moon considerably less than that of the Earth? Of course it is, though this doesn't render objects weightless. A massive metal structure still has a considerable amount of weight, even on the moon. Enough so that it cannot make a cat-like landing without the use of rockets to slow its descent. It would actually make more of a splat-like landing.
That is why in the artists' renderings of the landings (which obviously couldn't be filmed), an enormous blast of flame and fire is seen shooting out of the bottom of the module. This massive reverse force serves to counteract the effects of the moon's gravitational pull, thereby allowing the module to gently set down in the lunar dust unharmed and intact.

The problem is that - unless the landing surface was paved with say, concrete - an inordinate amount of material should have been displaced by the force of the rocket blasts as the module was setting down. You can easily verify this yourself. All you have to do is get hold of a Saturn V rocket (you know - the kind Werner von Braun and his team of fellow Nazi war criminals designed to power the Apollo missions), and head out to the desert.
Once you get there, hold the rocket aloft (you might want to wear gloves and an asbestos suit for this part) and fire that bad boy up, directing the blast towards the desert floor (you might also want to grab hold of a stationary object with your free hand and hold on real tight). The result should be, if you've done this correctly, a rather large crater and a blinding dust storm.
This will, of course, eventually settle, leaving a heavy coating of dust on you and your rocket. You may also notice that the blast has lent the desert floor a distinctive scorched look. The intense heat may even have fused the sand into something resembling a large sheet of glass.
The point here is that nothing of the sort was evident in the pictures beamed back from the moon. The lunar surface was, as noted, undisturbed and the module itself was as clean as if it had just rolled off the assembly line. It appears as though it did not land at all, but was rather set in place with a crane or other such device. And of course we all know that there were very few crane operators on the moon at that time.

How then did the module get there? Perhaps, you say, the surface was so compact that even the massive thrusts of the rockets could not dislodge it. That might be a reasonable explanation were it not for the fact that the astronauts themselves - who with the moon's reduced gravitational pull weighed in at about 20 pounds apiece (OK, so I just made that figure up, but you get the point) - made readily identifiable footprints from the moment their feet hit the ground.
It appeared, in fact, as though the lunar soil had roughly the same consistency as baby powder. And yet, amazingly enough, not a single grain of this soil was displaced by the landing of the module. Despite my initial skepticism, I had to admit that I had no logical explanation for this phenomenon

>>17831613
>>17831630
>>17831633
>checked!
>>17831638

you bring up a lot of good points, of course, anon, but those of the brainwashed masses that have been spouting "WE'VE BEEN THERE, LOONEYS! PICTURES! EVIDENCE!" will never be swayed by logic.

if just ONE piece of evidence existed that couldn't be manufactured here on earth could be shown, I might believe. But every single "evidence" of the moon landings presented CAN be manufactured.

>B-but, anon! You're crazy! Look at all the awesome HD photos we have! Moon Rocks! Reflectors on the moon! Russia says we did!

all of that shit has been presented and dismissed through fucking goddamn common sense logic, but they're the ones calling US crazy.

As for the idiots that are saying there's no point in going back because we had been to the Moon six hold times are you kidding me the first and only time in human history men have ever step foot on another Celestial body and 6 trips covered everything we needed to know my God if you didn't make your purpose here so obvious worried people would believe your gross stupidity

>>17831668


Sadly cognitive dissonance is a powerful voice that crushes truth before I can even germinate in the in the mind

You Americans have definitely been to the moon. This whole thread is faggot conjecture. There is hard science to prove it that cannot be discounted without altering the laws of physics.

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

>>17832134
To clarify for you >>17831668, there are mirrors that anybody with the money to rent time on the appropriate instrumentation can see for them selves, light that you can identify as yours sent to the moon and bounces back. That kind of precision must be man made, no natural phenomenon could exist.

>>17832134


So you're hard proof that men have been to the Moon is the fact we can use lasers to accurately measure the distance this must be a joke when you explain to me how we found a workaround for a minimum of 6 feet of LED plating Around The Craft and completely unmanageably heavy suits required for men to exit the lunar module then we can have a conversation

>>17831530
There were ten manned Apollo flights through the Van Allen Belts.

Did you think there was only one lunar landing?

In addition to the manned missions through the Van Allen Belts, there were multiple unmanned missions through the belts, measuring how much radiation was there.

The astronauts received less radiation then a standard chest x-ray.

>>17816472
A perfectly executed meme

>>17818944
He's probably suggesting it's a 2D protection lol

>>17832506
Not only is that patently flase, solar flares affect the strength of the radiation 9f the van allan belt anywhere from 4 to 5 multiples. And we KNOW during the televised moon landing there was an unprecedented solar flare, so peddle your lies elsewhere.

>>17832595
>during the moon landing

Again, there was more than one.

There was a solar flare just after Apollo 16 touched down back on earth. Even if they had been in space, it wouldn't have been fatal.

>>17832610
Youre missing the point, at the very least buzz and neal would have had severe radiation poisoning to say nothing of the multitude of other reasons its impossible for men to go in space.

>>17832629
No. Your point is wrong. Buzz and Neil and all the other Apollo astronauts all received some radiation. But it was all well below a safe limit. People who work at nuclear reactors are allow to be exposed to more radiation every single year then they received on their Apollo flights. It wasn't even enough radiation to increase the likelihood of cancer over an entire lifetime.

>>17816676
Ayy lmaos told them not to come back

>>17828312
>just too easy to fake
Yeah convincing hundreds, maybe even thousands of NASA employees to take a monumental secret to the grave would be really easy...

>>17831519
Find me one person who says it's impossible.

>>17831602
Perhaps if you twist it around to fit your tinfoil world view.

All he says is that they will be testing the radiation levels, and that they need to solve these challenge before sending people into space.

This is a new craft, with new shielding. It makes perfect sense that they need to test it and solve any problems regarding this new shielding.

Like I said in the last post, this is like saying "why do we need to crash test this new car? we already crash test a car before!"

Or how about putting a new type of plane through a wind tunnel and all the other rigorous tests they go through before even attempting take off in one.
According to your logic they should just put the plane together as quickly as possible and then fly away because they have already tested a plane before so they should know that this new one will work without any testing.

File: apollo11-buzz-aldrin.jpg (54KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 450x450px

>>17831613
>how anyone nevermind an untrained photographer could take perfectly framed photos each and every time
But you're flat out wrong.

One of the most famous ones was terrible framed, and most people only know of the cropped version where the rotation was corrected and extra black space added above.

Pic related: A perfectly framed photo

>>17832506
An interesting piece of information is that the Apollo astronauts absorbed nearly the same doses of radiation as astronauts who had never left earth orbit. It's like they didn't even travel through the radiation belts. HMMMM....

>>17830918
That occurs in just about every conspiracy theory as well.

>>17828401
Look, maybe NASA sent an unmanned craft to the moon like the USSR did? Ever watch Capricorn One? Great movie!

You sound knowledgeable about space history so you must know that following WW2 that the US and the USSR each got half (approximately) of the German rocket scientists of which the US got Werner Von Braun and others under Operation Paperclip. While the political landscape between countries was a cold war the scientists actually remained in contact (similar to how they do in the Antarctic despite politics) and exchanged ideas which eventually led to the Apollo-Soyuz Project (forerunner to Shuttle-Mir Program and ISS) during the Cold War unless you believe it happened by accident?

Over the years the US has sent millions of dollars in "aid" to Russia (or is it black-mail money?)

>>17830821
No telescope currently exists (allegedly) which can image any of the Apollo hardware OR it isn't there and "they" don't want us to know.

Unfortunately the moon's surface is under constant bombardment by meteorites and radiation so the flags have been destroyed.

>>17816652
Just because amerifats arent going to the moon doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Chinese are doing it.

>>17832134
>>17832156
Just so you know: The Soviets also put mirrors on the moon BUT they never sent men to do it! WUT???

>>17819113
>even though we should have the tech, at a much lower cost ration NOW, that existed in 69
Not if they stopped researching it.

Technology doesn't just magically become better.

People lost interest, they did all the research they really could on the moon, and now there is no real point in going back.
So they stopped research and development on the technology needed to get to the moon.

>>17819113
>Reading notes from Von Braun, the leading :rocket scientist" of the era who essentially enabled the US to "win the space race" plainly stated that the technology required, not only to leave earth's gravity well but also reach the moon, would require a rocket roughly the size of the empire state building
So you took a quote from 1953 and assumed that he hadn't made any progress or changed his opinion between then and 1969?

You're an idiot.

File: bulmakek.jpg (38KB, 510x379px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 510x379px

>>17824892
> that typo

>>17832651
You are under the wrong impression, again, assuming ludicrous shit because your ignorant as fuck.
The ground crews and NASA techs working on the ground and in the monitoring room were not in on it, they all thought it was real, too:

You forget that all the information they got was through receiving data "from the moon" when it was actually just a re-broadcast signal from a rocket in a low-earth orbit.

The only ones who actually KNEW it was fake were the astronauts and top-tier officials. Everyone else were just unknowing accomplices.

>B-but, psycho-anon, RUSSIA knew! If we faked it, they would have blown the whistle!

I imagine some top-tier russian officials knew as well, but due to Cold War dealings played ball in order to continue profiteering efforts.

>B-but REFLECTORS!

asked and answered TIME AND AGAIN, but you plebs continue to harp on over and over and over...

For the last goddamn time, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A MANNED MISSION TO PLACE REFLECTORS ON THE FUCKING MOON!

Jesus, and you guys ridicule us, but yet you'll parrot the same moronic shit over and over like good media slave.

Look, I'll level with you all here, and be 100% honest about this. I'm not trying to be some conspiracy nut, RPer, psycho-shill, or kek-troller.
Just honestly look at the goddamn common sense and logic of what I've been saying over and over, in this thread and in the others where the moon landing has been addressed.

Stop parroting the shit that some government office has handed down for the past 50 years and actually realize the fact that every last shred of what they offer as proof of man lading on the moon can be manufactured right here on earth.

>>17833490
>it was from a rocket in low-earth orbit.

But anon, rockets are trackable. They could tell it wasn't in low earth orbit.

>we sent robots to the moon but not real people

You're just piling stupid on top of stupid.

>>17833520

Wow, your the one making shit up, faggot.
he never said "robots"
your just twisting things around like every other shill
and the would only track where the rockets were if they were looking for them in low orbit, but they were focused on the moon and the false data being piped to their computers

>>17833490
>every last shred of what they offer as proof of man lading on the moon can be manufactured right here on earth
Just because it can, doesn't mean it was.

I'm not even going to address that last troll post.
The fact remains, my challenge stands undefeated. All I ask is that people understand and acknowledge that there isn't a single shred of evidence of the moon landings which could not have been manufactured here on earth.

I understand that I cannot ask and expect anyone to provide actual, provable evidence (of the moon landings) that doesn't exist, so I won't bother.

>>17833580
>he never said robots

Didn't have to. Putting mirrors on the moon would require some partially autonomous machinery

>they would only track them if they were looking for them in low earth orbit.

They were tracking them with radar and by triangulating their transmissions every step of the way.

You can't fake then.

Even if they had some sort of magical wizards tricking NASA computers, all the other space agencies tracking them would have noticed. At this point you're just stacking conspiracy theory on top of conspiracy theory, inventing new ones as the old ones fail, without even trying to make sense.

I guess that's easier than admitting you're wrong.

>>17833612
and that doesn't mean it wasn't, either, so you sheep need to stop saying that everyone else is wrong and you are the only ones that are right.

>>17833620
Well there is plenty of evidence they did land on the moon.

You tinfoils can only go "nuh-uh! That evidence is all fake and CGI!"
That is your only argument. Or misunderstanding one line from a video and claiming it is proof that they couldn't have gone to the moon.

>>17833618
you're the one grasping, dude.

>that's easier than admitting you're wrong.
exactly what you are doing, just patently denying anything that isn't the manufactured truth

>>17833624
>Well there is plenty of evidence they did land on the moon.

No, there isn't. but that's all you keep saying.... jesus
>No, you
>no, you!
>NO YOU!

this is stiupid, you are a sheep that has no independent thought, and you are nothing but a troll

>>17833625
I haven't any reason to admit I'm wrong.

All the evidence points to the moon landing. All you've got is paranoia and conspiracy theories.

>>17833628
So you believe there isn't evidence that we landed on the moon?

Just because you think you're a special snowflake who ignores anything that comes from the mainstream news or government, doesn't mean you are open minded or right.
>Hurrr muh independent thought!!!
That's all fine and dandy, unless you're an idiot like you who eats up anything he can find on conspiracy blogs or youtube. So, who is the sheep again?

Thr shills get in a frothy lather about the van allan belt but notice not one of them can or will ever spurce any of their bullsh claims

http://youtu.be/nX_QsRJx1J4

>>17833750
Which part of this do you think debunks the moon landing.

The part where he says we don't have the heavy lifting rockets we need to go to the moon?

That's true. Because the Saturn rocket program was cancelled and dismantled.

That doesn't mean it never existed.

>>17833727
>frothy lather about van allen belts

Who's getting in a frothy lather about them? They existed. The astronauts received a dose of radiation. It wasn't enough to cause any health problems. In the future it will be better to protect the astronauts more efficiently, especially for longer missions.

>spurce

English please.

File: ed3db855966d08f21c998defed1f4c43de54d6d5c44938f60c30cf96df5d62ba.jpg (57KB, 480x314px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x314px

>>17833635
>rinse, lather, repeat

>>17833656
>typical attack on someone because they don't believe what you do

>>17833823
>>typical attack on someone because they don't believe what you do
Oh you mean like this from the post I was replying to?
>you are a sheep that has no independent thought, and you are nothing but a troll

>>17818518
welcome new friend

>>17827880
>a gun wouldn't just "float away". it wouldnt fire in the first place without an oxygen atmosphere

Dumbass. The gun would fire, but the bullet would fly until it hit something because there is no atmosphere. Also the force of the bullet being ejected would cause the gun to recoil and drag you into outer space if you didn't let go, so you have only one bullet to shoot and you have to immediately let go. Then the gun will fly off into space because it discharged the energy

File: 1464542864665.png (65KB, 253x238px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 253x238px

>>17816472
All you have to do is buy a telescope and you can see it for yourself.

Schizophrenics that blatantly deny something that's right there in front of them should be gassed.

>>17833998
If you're on the moon the bullet would fall to the ground and quickly come to a halt.

As for recoil, the recoil of a gun is going to be the same as it is on earth, so no you wouldn't go flying off into space. You might have to brace yourself a bit better to keep from falling over though.

>>17832641
>People who work at nuclear reactors are allow to be exposed to more radiation every single year
kek man are you idiot.

>>17816472
ayy

>>17834415
Also medical x-ray technicians, airline attendants, and pilots.

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/info.html
http://www.techinsider.io/airplane-flight-cosmic-radiation-exposure-altitude-2015-11

Are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Center for Disease Control idiots too, anon?

Certain people's jobs allow them to be exposed to some amount of radiation. As long as it's below a limit, it's harmless.

Did you not know?

>>17833753
that is pure garbage

>>17833753
Those wrinkly parts are insulation. The gold parts reflect light and heat.

Since the lunar module is in outerspace, there's no need to worry about drag. Real space ships don't need to look like they do in sci fi movies.

>>17818762
Wat

File: theaffectsofradiation-537179.jpg (243KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 2560x1600px

>>17834437
The symptoms of mild radiation exposure include: headache, diarrhea, reddening of the skin, nausea and vomiting, How many symptoms did Apollo astronauts suffer from? Zero. Their radiation exposure was almost identical to what an astronaut in low earth orbit would experience BECAUSE THEY NEVER LEFT ORBIT!

>>17834511
>how many symptoms of radiation poisoning did Apollo astronauts suffer from

The Apollo astronauts were not exposed to enough radiation to cause any radiation sickness, this is why they did not suffer any symptoms of radiation sickness.

The Apollo astronauts were exposed to about 2 rems of radiation over the several days they were in space.

For comparison, a radiation worker is allowed 4 rems of radiation exposure over a year, every year, their entire life. That's well below any amount of radiation that would cause harm.

A full body CT scan is about 1 rem.

How much rem an astronaut in LOE gets depends on how long they stay in orbit. It averages out to about 1 rem every ten days.

>>17834437
how many manned launches actually left LEO?

only the apollos, and a gemini

>>17834535
why does the van allen belt break geiger counters

>>17834540
Oh that's right, I had forgotten about Gemini 11.

But yes, radiation is a thing that NASA is concerned with. It was never so bad that it prevented a moon landing. But it is something that in the future they would like to improve their spacecraft against. Which is why they say things like it's a problem that they want to solve. It will be a much bigger deal for manned Mars missions, and more long term missions to the moon.

>>17817544
the russians placed an even more precise retroreflector

with a robot

the mythbusters did not use a material with an albido of 6 percent

>>17834549
the apollos never left leo in reality

jarrah white meticulously went through the transcripts of the LIVE televised sections, and found impossible camera cuts and other inconsistencies

compartmentalization is a hell of a thing

>>17834561
They did.

That's why they got more radiation exposure in the time they were in space than if they had just been in leo.

Also they were tracked by radar. Also they took photographs and collected moon rocks and left tracks and instruments. Etc.

>>17834561
>Jarrah White

lol

>>17834545
The Van Allen Belt does not break Geiger counters.

If you're talking about the saturation of Geiger coutners during the Explorer program, it's because their Geiger counters hadn't been calibrated for that level of radiation, they weren't expecting it at all.

It's like trying to measure a pot of boiling water with a medical thermometer that only goes up to 110 degrees F.

>>17828652
What the fuck is wrong with you people? I post the maths proving that you can fly a rocket to the moon and you completely ignore it to ramble on about Van Allen Belts.

What is the point in trying to reason with people who move the goalposts?

>>17834794
>maths

you're talking to people who can't handle basic arithmetic. In all probability they're mentally ill. At best they are pathological liars. They're never going to admit that they're wrong, at best you can keep debunking their claims and make them angry.

File: 5682490e1f0000c000e9c9a7.jpg (70KB, 630x630px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 630x630px

Decent quality photography or video.

It's extremely odd( if not actually unbelievable) that we have higher resolution, colour pics of the surface of Mars than we do of the moon.

Cameras were pretty fucking good by the late 1960s...so why is every single picture we have of the moon so poor? Why can't we point the Hubble or Kepler at it and get some seriously hi rez vision going?

It stinks.

>>17835047
We've got decommissioned orbital weapons platforms from the Cold War circling the planet and can see solar flares, but not the moon, likely they've blown the shit out of some of it so don't take photos or you'd be able to see the stuff they are testing, they've probably hydrogened it now.

>>17835073
Have a war, rockets get in invented, go to moon, Internet gets invented. 70 years From no space to fucking looking at entire earth with google maps, still can't photo the moon, erm bullshit.

File: DSCN0961.jpg (1MB, 4608x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4608x3456px

>>17835047
>>17835073
Best pic I've managed to take of the moon. Pretty boring. Maybe it's because no one cares and Nasa can't justify bigger budgets with the boring old moon.

>>17835082
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/146909-darpa-shows-off-1-8-gigapixel-surveillance-drone-can-spot-a-terrorist-from-20000-feet
Fucking bullshit!

>>17835089
But it is interesting, it's the moon, it does the water.

>>17835090
The moon is like... 50,000x farther than that. And the atmosphere diffracts light, for the same reason that winter's colder than summer.

>>17835082
Have to keep that moon base secret

>>17835089
It gives perfect reason for the tinfoils to act all shady about the dark side, because the way camera technology seems deterred by the moons glow or radiation prob from launching shit tons of nukes at it, Galileo even said stuff about it we didn't even send a camera robot there, just people it's fishy like the water.

>>17835098
Well it is stupid, we can even split particles and take pictures of that on a screen good enough to get content detail but the moon is a fucking challenge. I know it's different data but the technology level and intellect of people facial recognition, internal cameras, wire cameras, predator drones, oh dear the moon is too hard.

>>17835113
What if... The moon isn't real?
Dun dun duuuunnnn
Dubs/trips = true.

File: 1399744142514.jpg (139KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1440x900px

>>17835097
>The moon is like... 50,000x farther than that. And the atmosphere diffracts light

So take some pics with satellites or orbiters. Not even the (relatively) recent Indian or Chinese moon projects have given us better pics.

It's a simple question that nobody has satisfactory answers for: why do we have better pics of Mars than the moon?

>>17833490
>>17833580
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

>>17835047
We have plenty of high quality pictures of the moon. Maybe do some fucking research before you post your stupid opinions.

File: WkBTqOr.jpg (2MB, 3600x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x4000px

>>17835106
>because the way camera technology seems deterred by the moons glow
What?

Does this look deterred by the moons glow or radiation to you?

Why send a robot when we could send people?

>>17835147
>why do we have better pics of Mars than the moon?
Because we are currently exploring Mars.

We have high res pictures of the moon. We have been to the moon. We are looking at Mars now.

File: IMG_20160620_205733.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>17818900
Equator shot

File: everystockphoto-nasa-space-52896-o.jpg (3MB, 3296x3809px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3296x3809px

>>17836254
>Because we are currently exploring Mars

There have been 19 unmanned missions to the moon from various countries since 1998, including an actual landing/rover mission by the Chinese in 2013.

The pics are still crap.

>>17836456
Yeah that super detailed, sharp, and clear photo of the moon is "crap"

What exactly do you want from these photos?

>>17836456
kek
even the older ones are pretty great
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

are you lost?

>>17833727
I like that you ignored this post here >>17832842
after getting btfo with your stupid claims.

File: 20160128_PCAMR-C-012_SCI_N_20140113191151_0008_A_2C_stitch.jpg (4MB, 4095x2768px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4095x2768px

>>17836456
Wow look how crap this photo from the chinese moon rover is!

>>17835047
>>17836456

here is one of the largest photograph in the world (681 gigapixels):

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan/

>>17818477
Circular reasoning is kind of unviversal to conspiracy theories.

File: Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif (642KB, 565x280px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 565x280px

>>17818927
Read up on "tidal locking". Also "libration" is of interest on that topic.

>>17827887
Are you implying that in the history of mankind and politics there has never been a single conspiracy?

>>17830787
>This is like asking why they crash test new cars, because they have crash tested a car before and know what happens.
Perfectly on spot analogy.

>>17836552
>just because I'm paranoid doesnt mean they are not after me

>>17836576
Pretty much, yes.

File: tmp_10599-1466448906301658933994.jpg (381KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1920x1080px

>>17816472
How could we go to something that isn't real? The moon is a hologram retard

>>17836593
yeah, thats an insane attitude mate

i love how conspiracy theorists get so angry, i love to imagine them sitting there typing furiously. sweat forming on the brow, their thoughts always self confirming that they know the truth and everyone who disagrees is shilling. the muscles in their arms tightening as they type more furiously.

i love it, to bad they wrong.

>>17836633
No, that's not a representation of myself, that's just me pointing out that among all the crazy conspiracy theories there are one that are accurate to varying degrees.

>>17816472
But we wen't to the moon.

>>17816472
let me analyse the original tapes
oh wait... they're gone :^)

>>17836726
>because a pendulum doesnt work in a vacuum

>>17836738
>flag doesn't move
>guy hops by
>airflow moves flag
>i-i-i-i-t's p-p-ppppppendulum!!!!

>>17836738
A pendulum does work in a vacuum.

>>17836747
thats not at all what happens

>>17836749
you dont have to translate obvious sarcasm

>>17836751
did the magical mystical moon fairy touch the flag at that exact moment to create the illusion of a waving flag to make the moon landing appear like a hoax? damn those moon fairies. you should nuke them all for foiling your plans.

>>17828401
Dude. This is fucking bullshit. I can barely recieve a vhf signal from a tv station 50 miles away with a powerful antenna specifically designed for that purpose and you expect people to be able to receive a signal from tens of thousands of miles away. The only way to be able to communicate with the apollo space craft would be with very large dish antennas. Anything normies would be able to receive would be from repeaters.

>>17836726
He shook the ground as he walked past causing a pendulum effect. Debunked.

>>17836783
yea, i forgot the gravity on the moon is so strong that his jumping caused minor moonquakes

>>17836760
what are you on about? the astronaut touched it with his "backpack". it swings so long because there is no air resistance

>>17836801
that's it! debunked.

>>17836793
>minor moonquakes
wtf?
it is lightweight flag that sticks in something like sand. doesnt need much to shae that up slightly

>>17836793
I forgot how much the astronauts + suits weighed, must have been 300 lbs. under 1/6 gravity that's 50 lbs. Dropping that next to a flag stuck in loose dust would rock it.

>>17836804
there was nothing to "debunk" in the first place. some people just dont understand basic scientific concepts or philosophical ones like occams razor

>>17836807
funny how that doesn't occur in other shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

must be very random. but then again, it's the moon!

>>17836814
It seems like you don't understand occam's razor either.

moon landing deniers BTFO

>>17836820
>>17836801

>>17836845
nice assumption.
But here is the catch: why?

>>17836912
>no air resistance
>low gravity
>guy moving fast
no. that's not even close to plausible. if anything he would have touched it with his arms since they are wider than his "backpack". and the reaction would be way stronger.

btw that >>17836804 was me, and it was sarcasm

>>17836914
Why what?

Why do people believe the moon landings were faked? Probably because they are very smart people with trust issues and too much time on their hands.

Why would someone fake anything?

I don't even think the moon landings were faked or even care.

>>17836941
then he slightly touched it with his arm, if that makes it more plausible for you.
Your whole argument is basically "I think that looked weird"
Of course it looks weird. They are on the moon.

Since you are so aware of weird movements:
>>17836820
in that video, why does the dust behave so weird? How are they moving that way if they arent on the moon? Why does the flag move, like it is in a vacuum (at the beginning)?

>>17836942
>Why what?
>It seems like you don't understand occam's razor either.
because I do and I dont know what I said that makes you think otherwise

>>17836942
>Why do people believe the moon landings were faked?
Because they don't understand the maths. I posted the maths proving the Saturn V could get the moon and it was totally ignored. And these people wonder why no-one takes them seriously

>>17836942
>probably because they are very smart people

I'm not seeing any evidence of that. All the ones I've seen are deeply ignorant of everything from physics to logic.

>>17836959
>like it is in a vacuum

Because it is in a vacuum.

You know, the astronaut doesn't have to brush the flag to send it moving. It's on a long skinny pole in loose dirt. Just bouncing around nearby would cause it to shake a bit.

>>17836962
I don't think they deny the math works....

>>17836942

I know a guy with aspergers. He's smart as hell. Can multiply four digits by four digits in his head. He built his own rail gun. He can't handle being in big buildings so he works as a gardener. Swears to christ almighty that the earth is flat, moon landings are fake.

He lives two apartments down from me and I occasionally look up counter arguments to his theories. He has counter arguments to every fucking one.

>>17836975
The Earth is flat. Accept it. Your friend is very wise.

>>17836975
do you have problems with reading comprehension and the concept of a rhetoric question?

>>17816472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

File: 416973_329027013861192_109540014_n.jpg (44KB, 388x390px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 388x390px

>>17816472

Nothing.
Earth is flat as evidenced by a thousands of timelapse videos on the Inderpnet.


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

http://www.shutterstock.com/fr/video/clip-10369841-stock-footage-colored-sky-after-sunset.html?src=rel/9534848:3

http://www.shutterstock.com/fr/video/clip-12683792-stock-footage-starry-moonlit-night-on-the-river-seversky-donets-rostov-region-russia-full-hd.html?src=rel/10369841:5/3p

Watched it from beginning to end. It's so sad.

Apollo 11 Press Conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI

>>17817657
Faggot your wrong. There's a guy on YouTube who made a video on this. You're stupid. The gun powder has its own oxidizer so it can fire. Also the moon DOES have gravity but only enough to keep a shot bullet in a rotational pull to where it would zip around and hit you in the back of the head. You should kill yourself for being so stupid. Preferably by use of Moon landing gunshot to head. Also dubscheck

>>17838099

it becomes outright pathetic once you start looking at the famous ISS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6IZUq6v92I#t=33

pics or it didn't happen bitch

>>17838056
If the earth was flat the sun would set at the same time everywhere, which is obviously not true

ayy lmao

>>17838269
I recommend you understand the basics before making any comment

https://youtu.be/dgdwiViAw3w?t=806

>>17817657
The fact that there is no gravity(eventough the moon has gravity) makes gun even more deadly, the bullet would move straight indefenetely and never fall, I cant imagine why you imaginé that zero gravity somehow makes billetes innofensive, but I dont expect a flat earther to understand gravity so dont worry

>>17838056
>moon sets
>it goes under the horizon
>this somehow proves flat earth

>>17838280
>it goes under the horizon
it doesn't

>>17838282
oh no. it magically disapears, except for people further west or higher up than you
enjoy your (You)

Going there myself

>>17838276
If the north pole is higher in order to block the suns light then why doesnt the water fall down from the north pole?

You know, if it is higher than the rest of the earth, and there is water up there, and water runs downstream...shouldnt it be dry?
And even if there is a solution to that, why isnt the sun falling to earth? You do understand that it is diferrent to orbit a body than to just do circles over it? An orbit is an stable movement, doing circles over(instead if arround) something results in the thing falling in an spirqk fashion to the ground,that celestial movement in your vídeo is simply stupid, it is impossible without changing all we know about basic newtonian physics, and befire you say "le science cult" the same laws that tell me that solar movement is imposible are the laws that are used to build cars and make them work, do you trust your Car? Then you trust newton, then you cant believe in a flag earth, or at least in those idiotic celestial movements which result in the sun and moon falling to earth except if god is magically continually keeping them up because he designed a universe in which the sun would fall on the flat earth unless he was constantly pushing it upwards

I am sorry if I dont take your theory seriously, but it is just so inelegant and useless.when your physical theory(you dont even have one because beyond imagination and computer graphics you have no matematical structure to expresa your ideas, not that I expect you in a first place to understand mathematics in a first place...) is used to produce technology, such as normal physics which imply our suncentered model have done in the past.

File: unlogo2.png (553KB, 862x862px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 862x862px

>>17838292
it's called the law of perspective, as an object goes away it appears lower and smaller. Also light doesn't travel to infinity as told by the modern garbage sciences thus while our orb goes away the amount of light we receive also decrease. This is no rocket science, all civilization have known that simple fact for thousands of years, see pic related for a Chinese allegory of the path of Moon and Sun over the flat Earth.
Believe it not, instead do your own research and the Truth shall be revealed.

File: unlogo.png (78KB, 1150x1150px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1150x1150px

>>17838305
here is the flat Earth map

>If the north pole is higher

it isn't, the light doesn't travel to infinity. Your sciences are shit.

File: wheeee.gif (3MB, 400x215px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x215px

>>17838338
>This is no rocket science
at least we can agree on that

>>17838346
>here is the flat Earth map
so, there is no Antarctica and South America is 3 times the size of North America?

>>17838338
No, I am sorry, you are wrong, might physics wont just change because it contradicts your paranoiadriven cosmology, because of light physics we know what we should see in a flat earth, and we dont see it, so no flat earth, in which case you can come uo with "weird twisted earth" theory, but at this point where you have to treat earth as pizza dough ti make it fit your beliefs it is better to just find something better to you

Also, even if flat earth theory was right, that picture wouldnt be how the earth would look like, that is an artistic vision but it is not how it should look if you have a minimum if spatial inteligence to understand how shadows would look like

Also, ancient chinese cosmology believed in either spherical or half Dome earth, so I doubt they designed the yingyang to represent a theory they rejected

>>17838346
The fact that light travels to infinita is what makes your Internet cable work, so if flat earth is true because light physics is wrong then your Internet cant work and you are not reading this

And even if light couldnt travel to infinity, our solar system is small enough, a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of the universe, for those effects not to count

Also, nice projection, I really like that class of maps

File: flatearthbullshit.gif (1MB, 482x482px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 482x482px

>>17838338
>>17838346
holy shit guys, if you really want to troll/play devils advocate with this shit, at least roll with pic related or even better the infinite plane/ non- euclidean space approach

File: 1656349_200764456962901_7838886630874018330_n.jpg (31KB, 717x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 717x480px

>>17838363
antartica is the edge
and yes SA is bigger than NA,
there is no need for a spheroid oblate potatocuck that has the shape of a pear below equator.
it is just flat, as simple as that.

>>17838371
That would be a good theory

Except it doesnt explain the seasons

Or eclipses, what is an eclipse in a flat earth?

>>17838369
>The fact that light travels to infinita is what makes your Internet cable work
wrong
the signal has to be refreshed after a short distance otherwise you get nothing on the receiving end.

>>17838373
Even if SA is bigger than NA is not that bigger, something is wrong

Also, no one has ever negated that glaciers naturally form walls, that doesnt happen in antartica but also in the north pole, is how ice works

It is not an infinite wall and you can probsbly find images where the topography is different

Also, if antartica is a conspiracy, why do penguins go there? Are they also part of the conspiracy?

>>17838364
>a study found.

keep your pseudo science garbage please.

File: 2003SouthPoleMarker_lg.gif (114KB, 451x415px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 451x415px

>>17838390
>is not that bigger,
based on your feelings?

>It is not an infinite wall
again based on your gut feelings?

>>17838382
When your source is a burning ball of fire in the sky you dont have to worry about losing the signal as if the sun was a crappy walkietalkie you use to comunicate with your faggot friend at the other side of the street

Also, it is not the same for particles to travel through vacuum than through air, most of what you think is the nature of waves is actually the nature of waves interacting with a non vacuus medium

>>17838411
>the light emitted by the Sun is a whole different kind of light that can travel billion of miles
I smell retardation

>it is not the same for particles to travel through vacuum than through air,
particles like bubbles in space.

>>17838404
Based on centuries of mapping

Oh, I forgot, every single explorer, map maker and even the most insignificante captain of a tuna fishingboat is part of a conspiracy, one of its branches is to make us believe that SA is not the size the ignorant masses believe it to be...


You do realize the world would be chaotic if a continental was actually smaller than they told us right? Even the most stupid sailor would eventually notice it when his planned route based on those maps the government approves dont fit reality


Also, it is not an infinite wall because your own theory says it is finite and because I know penguins go to the antartica in certain seasons, and I know they dont just stand there looking at the wall for months so somewhere even if it is just a small beach there is a break in those ice walls

And in case you want to even doubt me further because you are such an sceptic and rational person, yes, I have actually seen the penguins leave to the south from Australia

Inb4 the south doesnt exist and im deluded

>>17838427
No, it is not the light that is different, it is the médium, vacuum and air are completely different

But hey, what do I know, according to you I am retarded and it is not as if you felt insecure because you never passed physics in highschool and that has left a deep incurable scar in your pride

>>17838338
Stars are billions of times further away than the moon, and then never disappear

>>17836962
I just want to point out for all the /sci/ fags that feel the need to defend NASA, scientific probabilities, arguments where Occam's razor needs to be mentioned or any other data that is almost universally accepted (the earth is not flat, etc) : You are wasting your time. /x/ is here to consider the outside possibilities, You know, the stuff that you would prefer to ignore, the stuff that your feeble imaginations won't consider. SO, if you are coming here to scientifically refute the things which seem unlikely then why doncha get back on your high horse and gallop off into the sunset. If, on the other hand, you want to discuss possibilities and infinite horizons, welcome to /x/

>>17839709
If playing make-believe is the theme of this board, then what the hell is /tg/ for?
I think that both the hardcore skeptics and the hardcore 'believers' are in the wrong. To adhere to a point of view so much that they dismiss other venues of thinking as 'shills', 'idiots' and other derogatory terms is making them blind to the real possibilities. Caking and calcifying their brains in.

tl;dr: y'all just plain wrong, expand minds plzkthxbai.

>>17838247
You must be retarded if you believe that those are bubbles.

Have you ever seen bubbles zipping around going in all different directions at the same time?

>>17839709
>You must blindly believe and accept every possibility

>If, on the other hand, you want to discuss
So a discussion to you is everyone just agreeing with whatever you believe?
That's not a discussion, that's a circle jerk.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110528104126/http://www.radiohead.com/worms.php