Did Kubrick Fake the Moon Landing?

check out illumintiwatcher on youtube he does a good exposee on it

Have no proof, nor do I believe in the conspiracy, but he totally could have, the man had skills beyond most people's comprehension with that camera at the time

>>17860836
will do

>>17860833
he did. filmed in location

Anybody who believes the moon landing was faked is a fucking retard. The Soviets would have jumped at the opportunity to make America look bad and shit they even confirmed our craft went up there!

room 237 af

If you don't understand that the original moon landing was faked you're a fucking mongoloid

>>17861486
Tell me how the moon landing was faked when you can buy an extremely powerful telescope and see the fucking evidence of them there. Fucking autistic little kid.

File: 1447323807238s.jpg (2KB, 125x93px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x93px

Its only proof as long as you accept it
because in your mind its not the case if you reject it
lets say we do have proof
what then
why pretend
that you can actually do something to them
maybe just maybe
the russians are just another branch of them
coincidentally their all called government
but maybe you didnt notice
because the news served a notice
and told us
you only have 2 choices
black or white
wrong or right
whats right is wrong but were with this team so its all right
its all real
nothing is wrong
were telling the truth at all time
we really want to protect you
but we wont do it for free
and even if you provided everything
the need to just would be in me
yea....

>>17861512
>the russians are just another branch of them
>coincidentally their all called government

It's like he throws words in a blender, waits for some words to fly out, then strings them together and posts them.

>>17861499
Having fun you fucking mongoloid?

>>17861499
that's a lie and you know it. liar.

>>17861528
it's called being high

>>17860889
yes

>>17861442
what if they sent a craft but didn't actually land?

>>17861486
tell us more

>>17861499
what kind of telescope, i will buy one

File: 584582main_M168000580LR_ap17_area_flat.jpg (844KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 1600x1200px

Photos of Apollo landing sites on the Moon

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/

The fact that there isn't any evidence the moon landing was faked just proves how devious NASA really is.

File: 1417027102856.jpg (37KB, 515x263px)

37KB, 515x263px

How to use a telescope to find Lunar Landing sites:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

So. Many. Mongoloids

Why is everyone is this thread so angry

>>17861499
lies and you know it

http://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/10/05/so-nasa-got-sick-of-all-that-conspiracy-thing-and-released-over-10000-photos-from-the-apollo-moon-mission/
Christ
All these fucking 12 yo

I think the really important question is who cares?

>>17861594
>>17861623
>>17861639
Damage control.

>>17863062
we

>>17863084
>proof
>"damage control"
What the fuck?

what's a mongoloid? it sounds like an std you get on your dick.

>>17863149
>proof
You consider that proof? Shooped images from Nasa?

>>17863084
Buzzwords

>>17860833
look at your own pic you big silly goose

File: swampgas.jpg (1MB, 2591x1982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2591x1982px

Why do you care about if we landed, and not about what's actually there?

>>17860833
"Kubrick" in that one interview was referred to as "Tom" at one point, berated by the interviewer for going off script, and seemed to be pretty out of it most of the time.

The moon landing video that was shown live on television was directed by Kubrick. He was tasked with making an essentially controlled version, because they had no idea what they would find. The feed from the moon never would have been live anyway, so they had the opportunity to pull the plug on whatever they actually found, and use the control reel instead. It was very carefully orchestrated.

The "proof", or good evidence, is Stanley Kubrick's entire filmography after 2001 and Doctor Strangelove.

Look up the Jim Harold interview with Jay Weidner. There's also a video on YouTube of Stanley himself admitting that he faked it, and explaining why. The video was filmed shortly before he passed away and was designated to be released 15 years after his death. You can even see the warping of the film reel since it was stored for a decade and a half.

Decide for yourself.

>>17861499
Hey dumbass. Nobody ever said that Apollo never made it to the moon. The argument is that the official video was a cover up directed by Stanley Kubrick. They've been to the moon several times.

>>17861740
Because everyone believes that they're exclusively right, and anyone who contradicts them is wrong. It's called being stubborn.

>>17863308
is there a video on youtube of it?

>>17863331
Search YouTube for Stanley Kubrick moon landing interview. Watch it carefully. Take notes. Report back what you believe.

File: kubrick.jpg (23KB, 366x344px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 366x344px

>>17860833

>>17861740
welcome to /x/

>>17863340
And? This was a meeting for 2001: A Space Odyssey you fucking idiot, of course he was going to consult with NASA about conditions in space, THAT'S WHAT THE MOVIE WAS ABOUT

>>17863362
Stop being so angry dude. Just chill.

>>17863362
LOL you made my day.

File: 1463976069677.jpg (38KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 447x444px

>tfw you realize some people actually seriously believe the moon landing was faked

>>17861499
Djinns placed the flags and mirrors there for NASA

Truth

>>17863372
THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE YOU YET YOU STILL GRASP ON TO STRAWS HOPING ITS A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY WHEN ITS NOT

IF ANYONE NEEDS TO CHILL IT'S YOU

File: Capricorn one.jpg (86KB, 497x755px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 497x755px

>>17860833
No.

That was a movie.

>>17863324
a coverup of what?

>>17860833
The number one reason why I don't believe in the moon landing is because we haven't fakes a "Mars" landing yet.

File: 1444353905818.png (79KB, 230x337px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 230x337px

>>17863084
>Is presented with irrefutable proof
>Denies proof

>>17863422
I love how much of /x/ is just shitty half-remembered hollywood movies people mistake for reality.

There's this. "Grays" are just the aliens from an old TV movie. The Chupacabra just comes from a crazy lady who saw the movie Species and couldn't tell fantasy from reality. Wonder how much else comes from Hollywood.

>>17863447
Irony

I will debunk all "moon landing was a hoax" theories.
Taking all challengers.

>>17863437
>irrefutable proof
I beg to differ.

How can teh moon be real if our eyes aren't real?

>>17863148
speak for yourself buddy

>>17863167
It's a person of mongol descent.

Coincidentally, it's also a type of mental retardation.

http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
>The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive >training in preparation for their Moon >explorations. Over the several years prior to >the Moon missions, scientific and >photographic training was provided. >Astronauts were encouraged to take training >cameras on trips to become more familiar with >the camera operation and to enhance their >photographic technique. Tutorials were >provided to the crews on the equipment, its >operation, as well as on the scientific >purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in >Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently >simulating their lunar traverse, completely >outfitted with sample bags, checklists, >simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, >core-sampling equipment, and typically using >Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they >would use on the Moon. As the use of the >camera was mostly automated, the most >crucial training was in pointing the camera >which was attached to their chest control >packs for the suit's environmental control >system. The astronaut would point his body in >order to aim the cameras. Films taken during >the practice exercises were processed and >returned to the crewmen who would study the >results.
The shots were picture perfect and kubrick was the guy who did it.

>>17863494
You're welcome to try to refute it.

Simply denying it isn't the same thing as refuting.

>>17861499

>seeing things that where built into the moon from the start are somehow proof of moon landing the 60s

>>17863424

That the US didn't win the space race, the sovjets did.

Its the same as with the star wars program (missile defense) - making it look real for propaganda.

>>17863389

>being this new

Welcome online

>>17863318
>There's also a video on YouTube of Stanley himself admitting that he faked it, and explaining why
Of a guy who looks little like Kubrick and gets called Tom, and has tge interviewer coaching him on what to say through almost the entire thing because "Kubrick" is inattentive and forgetful.

>>17863615
Explain.

The USSR beat the U.S. into space. Nobody denies that. The apollo footage doesn't cover that up.

The U.S. beat the USSR in putting a man on the moon. You admit that as a given. So thus fake footage of a moon landing that really happened doesn't cover up anything.

>>17863494
>Is presented with irrefutable proof
>Denies proof

Us not landing on the moon is up there with the Holohaux as pants on the head retarded.

The Lunar Laser Ranging project was utilized by MIT, the fucking Soviet Union, France, Japan, and then some.

We didn't send men on the moon but we successfully landed massive orbiters, vehicles, and these mirrors but we couldn't be bothered to include men? The fuck out of here. This is the dumbest conspiracy theory out there.

>>17863665
Don't try to bring logic or facts into this, it makes these people's atrophied brains hurt.

>>17863651
I suggest suicide, or at least never reproducing.

>>17863736
Yeah, after all I dont want my children to live in a world were man never landed on the moon

You keep making these points that totally convince me that you know what you are talking about and are not just a lunatic or a troll

https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs

just watch this fags

>>17863717
>logic or facts
Good goy.

>>17863756
>lunatic
Heh.

>>17863756
More so you don't pass on your retarded beliefs on to them.
>>17863776
I have shekels, at least.

>>17863494
>I beg to differ.
Well then, go ahead
We're waiting

>>17863768
I saw that a while back and just roll my eyes at these sorts of threads now, there's absolutely no room for speculation after watching that video

itt people who are jealous that they couldn't go to the moon.

you know i'm right

>>17863909
I think people here believe that nowadays we have the power to go there now but the tech in 1969 was too primitive to get there and back without a hitch. It was mainly about timing and trajectory which was hard to calculate then, but not impossible. Besides, is space walking and landing on the moon really all that far off? People never seem to frame the Soviets for going to space and leaving their capsules to walk around but god forbid the Americans land on the moon nearly a decade later and it's staged.


However on the flip side of the coin I don't blame people for believing so. The United States government at the time had done some mind-boggling things and the Kennedy assassination still had most people on edge. Not to mention there really isn't any easily visible proof aside from mirrors presumed to be set there.

daily reminder that fake moon landing, flat earth, 9/11 no plane, etc etc are government think tank endorsed "theories" whose sole purpose is to muddy the waters for legitimate conspiracies.

"you believe the government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks? i bet you think the earth is flat too!"

>>17863976
>their really isn't any visible proof aside from the mirrors

and photographs and film and rocks that they brought back and....

>>17864011
>This conspiracy is really just a conspiracy!

You're only piling stupid on top of stupid.

Do you believe that all conspiracy theories are real? Do you believe it's impossible that some conspiracy theories out there are just false, and only stupid people believe in them? Or are all conspiracy theories either true, or planted there by the government?

>>17863084
Mental retardation.

>>17860889
Yep, it was filmed on the moon.

>>17861442
>>17861486
Anyone else want some popcorn?

File: willsmithplz.jpg (9KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x300px

>>17863610
>things that where built into the moon from the start

>>17861442
Thank you, anon.
>>17861499
Even if the conspiritards on this thread see it, they'll just say that the telescope was tampered with, or they'll even go as far as saying that they were there originally (which is fucking stupid.)

>>17861442
Thank you! I can't believe there are people retarded enough to believe that.

>>17863447
No skinwalker or succubi blockbusters so far.

The moon landing being fake is more like a openly endorsed meme at this point. Landing on it is about as absurd as it being faked.

>>17863447
>Wonder how much else comes from Hollywood.
So you're saying a large portion of the population can have their perception of reality warped by popular media? Interesting. I wonder if they could do the same with the moon landing.

Where's the original footage of Apollo 11 by the way? Does NASA still have it?

>>17861528
You articulated what I was thinking.

File: pill.jpg (155KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x1200px

>>17863410
Mate, I agree that the moon landings were real, but you need to calm down.

>>17864196
>Does NASA still have it?

Well you see Anon, NASA just "conveniently" and "coincidentally" destroyed and "lost" a vast amount of "moon footage" :^)

>>17863318
This is plausible. Kubrick could have faked the moon landing which could have actually happened anyway.

>>17864218
Never attribute to malice, that which can be achieved through incompetence.

File: Captain_turkey.webm (1MB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x360px

>>17864217
STOP TELLING ME TO CHILL OUT
YOU FUCKING CHILL OUT "MATE"

>>17863447
Wow, /x/ is just a bunch of delusional people who believe that monsters/aliens from movies are real? Nobody has ever come to this conclusion before!
/sarcasm

>>17864243
*cashes check*

>>17864234
I don't think malice is required to fake the moon landing footage that was broadcast across the world so long ago.

>>17864234
Idioms were invented so that monkeys could feel smart.

>>17863768
Best post.

>>17863844
>beliefs

>>17863840
kek. that wasnt even intended

>>17864218

there is enough footage mate

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157659052908231

File: 1466543595199.jpg (79KB, 926x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 926x960px

NO FUK U

File: CapricornOne2.jpg (69KB, 639x456px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 639x456px

OJ Simpson faked the Mars landing.

File: capricorn-one-01-g.jpg (137KB, 1200x787px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1200x787px

>>17864360

>>17864353
Yeah for the TV thing they aired for some reason. None of that is real.

>>17864353
Yeah from the TV special they aired for some reason. None of that is real.

>>17864353
That is not the original footage.

>>17864218
There has never been any lost or destroyed footage of the moon. All of the footage remains intact.

There was one copy of the footage of the moon landing in a very specific format that was intentionally deleted to make room for other stuff, but other copies of that footage on other formats remains.

>>17864353
You misunderstand.

Misplacing, destroying, or otherwise losing the footage from our first successful mission to another astronomical body is a crime against humanity. We have a right to access it, a right to copy it, and a right to protect it from harm by those that would cuck humanity. Each and every one of us has these rights to something of this magnitude.

Do you have any idea how many people have dreamed to reach the stars?

>>17864404
Bullshit.

>>17864291
You don't think lying to millions of people is malicious? I do.

>>17864243
It's not that they're delusional and stupid, anon. It's that they're so unoriginal that they can't even make up their delusions on their own, but have to plagiarize them from movies.

>>17864365
>>17864377
>>17864388
Unless you can tell me how all those pictures are fake, I have to assume you are just purposfully ignoring evidence.

>>17864409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

>they were never missing

It's just a back up on a different format that was, as it clearly shows, intentionally deleted.

>>17864410
Malice can do it too, but if we refuse to attribute malice, incompetence works as well.

>>17864408
>footage from our first successful mission to another astronomical body is a crime against humanity
fair enough mate. This material is indeed a treasure.
The way the post was phrased sounded like it was implying they never had footage because "it was a hoax", so I wanted to point out that there is a fuckton of evidence

>>17864432
Because the answer is: How would we know? evidence can and usually is fabricated and manipulated in many instances just like the English language can be. Your intent is weak.

>>17864425
YOU MEAN I'M NOT ORIGINALE!?

File: 1458191066835.png (188KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 327x316px

>>17864436
>the encyclopedic Jew
>trustworthy

You might as well have linked to a blog post.

Notice how these threads present little to no evidence for either side. Just angry individuals arguing with other angry individuals, waist of time.

I'm glad there are finally people on this board fighting against these lying shills. Keep it up people. Keep exposing their lies and don't stop, attack them at every turn, expose every single contradiction. Most of them cannot even think for themselves and simply parrot some shit they think is true.

>>17864502
What do you think is wrong with the article?

Which footage do you think is missing?

>>17864511
So I'm just gonna point out that it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get us to attack each other.

>>17861499
>if you buy a very powerful telescope
that's not true, you need a special device not available for common people and only used by "scientists" so it's not a proof at all

>>17864508
You, on the other hand, may have a point. I can see them intentionally censoring actual evidence.

>>17864523
Yeah no shit dingus.

>>17864043

They don't have to be invented by the specials, but they sure as hell will propagate them if they fit in well with the disinfo agenda

File: 1418399509841.png (576KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 600x900px

Stanley Kubrick never existed, he was portrayed by an actor. An actor that was David Lynch's real life uncle.

>>17864408
So much this

>>17864597
Do you think there are conspiracy theories out there that are just plain wrong, and a person would have to be stupid to believe in them?

If not the moon hoax, then which?

>>17864470
So you dont how they are fake. You cant find one little clue indicating that someone messed with this in all those 5000+ pictures but somehow you know that they are wrong. You seem to believe that cgi/ special effect are magic.
And what about all the physical evidence like the remains of the landing or the moon rocks we have here on earth?
nope, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "FAKE FAKE FAKE"

>>17864508
>for either side
there is already a lot of evidence for it in the thread. What else do you want? I can post much more evidence

>>17864425
Well said, anon.

>>17865092
>You seem to believe that cgi/ special effect are magic.

yeah its called movie magic dingus.

File: wes_snipes.jpg (16KB, 171x247px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 171x247px

>>17861635

File: wot.gif (3MB, 359x202px)

3MB, 359x202px

>>17864112
>>17864511
>>17865131

>>17861564
>what if they sent a craft but didn't actually land?
The government would send Buzz Aldrin to fight communist jets armed with autocannons, but would draw the line at risking sending him to the moon?

File: Apollo17.gif (3MB, 636x357px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 636x357px

This is the official footage of the Apollo lunar module actually taking off from the surface, and some people actually believe it.

>>17865429
This right here is the smoking gun.

File: kekcat.jpg (111KB, 497x640px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 497x640px

>>17865131

>>17865429
kek
Please tell me what is "fake" about it

>>17865429
Yeah, I believe it. Pretty damn hard to fake in the early 1970s.

Why shouldn't people believe it?

>>17864531
>putting scientists in quotations
Tinfoil hat detected

>>17865501
>landing on the moon = easy
>faking a moon landing = pretty damn hard

k

>>17865501
>Pretty damn hard to fake in the early 1970s.

Meanwhile in 1929

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQlwhG76P9A

File: 1465762829457.gif (2MB, 300x334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x334px

>>17865522

>>17865517
Yes? Yes.

see

>>17863768

They didn't have cgi technology back in the 70s. Oh maybe NASA had super secret prototype cgi technology just to fake the moon landing. But now you're inventing magic technologies just to fill the holes in your conspiracy theories.

File: doomguy.jpg (4KB, 116x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 116x125px

>>17865529

Ordinarily I'm on this board through days on end of insomnia and maintain constructive conversations despite being horribly sleep deprived, but for the first time ever I've found a post that I know I don't have the energy to even begin explaining the stupidity of. God help you. I'm going to fucking bed.

>>17865538
well thats convenient.
so far not a single moonlanding denier itt has explained his reasoning

>>17865501
My point is that it is NOT footage of a hovering landing module, as you claimed, ergo you are a lying shill.

>>17865560
What? Of course I believe we landed on the moon. The point of my post is that yours, and your reasoning, is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read on this board. Do you have any notion of how difficult an achievement that is?

>>17865560
And all you have done is post reaction gifs/images.

You're done. You trolled the thread. Now collect your paycheck and leave.

>>17865567
I never claimed it was a hovering landing module.

That's clearly the lunar module taking off, not hovering.

>>17865538
>I don't have the energy

You have the energy, you posted that long winded post.

What you don't have is a valid counterargument.

>>17865594
annnnd this right here is why people don't respond to shills. They just argue semantics endlessly and are intentionally vague until you argue so much the original point was lost. Classic technique. Tired and true.

>>17865605
>this is why people don't respond to 'shills'

They don't respond because they're wrong, and everybody knows it.

>>17865573
>it is dumb because i say so

>>17865575
>but all you have done is posting evidence

>>17865587
yeah cool
for the 500000th time: evidence for your retarded claims?

File: lroc_wac_nearside_noslew.png (1MB, 1400x1400px)

1MB, 1400x1400px

>>17865587
>The moon landing THAT WAS SHOWN ON TV WAS FAKE. Yes fake. The thing shown on TV in the 70's was a film.

"Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on July 20, 1969"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

1969 =/= 70's

>>17865594
>That's clearly the lunar module taking off, not hovering
LMAO!!!

Yeah, ""clearly""
Well, clearly you are a lying shill

>>17865659
You see how it keeps going up? That's taking off. If it were hovering it'd just be... hovering there.


By the way, you still haven't explained why you think it's fake.

Were you expecting a bunch of flames and smoke? In a vacuum?

>>17865672
>it is taking off not hovering, therefor it is real
LMAO!!!

keep dreaming about your spayce rokkits you shilling liar

>>17865671
They didn't have TV in the 40s and they didn't show the Normandy landings live. Those recordings are on film. The moon landings, however, were on video, which is different than film.

>>17865683
You said I said it was hovering, but I never said it was hovering.

Do we now agree the clip shows the lunar module taking off? Fine.

What part about it is fake, any why?

>>17865686
>They didn't have TV in the 40s
...

>>17865688
It is clearly a miniature shot.
Did you also thought 2001 a space odyssey was real.
LMAO, I bet you did, you toodle pip looser

>>17865688
the part where cartoon sparkles fly out and then the space craft wobbles into the sky stupidly.

File: overlook_hotel_aerial.jpg (411KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 500x730px

Speaking of Kubrick. There is one thing that still bugging me from The Shining.
Where the hell is the Maze located at? I can't find that place from the aerial view scene at the beginning of movie.

File: zing.jpg (55KB, 440x460px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 440x460px

>>17865686
>Those recordings are on film. The moon landings, however, were on video, which is different than film
You can go and troll /tv/ with this shit. Got a kek out of me

>>17865701
It is simply a continuity error. They filmed in 3 different "hotels"

>>17865671
why are you dragging normandy into this? the moon landing shown on tv was fake deal with it.

>>17865700
>cartoon sparkles

Those are pieces of foil the spacecraft is covered in. You'd really expect that to stay on during a rocket blast? Why?

>it wobbles

And why wouldn't it? It's an asymmetric multi-ton vehicle filled with equipment, rocks, and crew. Of course it's going to correct its trajectory and attitude. All rockets due this. That's just basic physics.

>>17865705
Do you think /tv/ understands the difference between video and film? Lots of 12 year olds these days who are only familiar with digital media. People back in the 1960s and 1970s would have known.

Do you understand the difference, anon? If the moon landing had been filmed by Stanley Kubrick in a studio, there would be all sorts of artifacts due to filming, even if they had transferred it to video.

>>17865721
it reminded me of poochy going back to his home planet.

File: sheeeeeeve.jpg (96KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x900px

>>17865729
But anon. I already called you out. Come on, I remember you from troll college, you cheeky little shit

>>17865721
>mistaking an obvious miniature shot for reality
LMAO!!!

>>17863344
Home of the retarded and delusional

>>17861442
Of course the Soviets believed it. That was the whole point.

>>17863303
What am I supposed to look at?

>>17865710
I'm pretty sure it was done on purpose to make the film even more puzzling. Some guy went through the film and came to the conclusion that the floorplan was impossible.

>>17866123
There is also a very obvious continuity error in this >>17860833 scene. In one cut the pattern of the floor changes its direction.

File: BvbcclP.jpg (135KB, 1000x752px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1000x752px

Humanity did land on the moon, but the footage wasn't able to be broadcasted because it contained footage of alien activity.

Yes, we went to the moon. No, the footage we saw was not of the actual landing. Why do people fight about whether or not we went to the moon or whether or not it was fake? All of those explanations are true.

File: ayy.jpg (90KB, 546x410px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 546x410px

>>17866176
but why keep aliens secret?

>>17866185
Control of authority on earth, and increased production of both physical goods and other, more "ephemeral" products. If the existence of aliens were revealed to the general public, suddenly people would stop focusing on local politics, Trump, the Brexit, etc. and be able to turn their ambitions further. Instead of needing permission to go to mars from Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson they could get into contact with alien authorities to get there, and thus proliferate amongst the rest of the interstellar civilizations.

Earth is to the galaxy what /pol/ is to 4chan; a containment board. Humans are awful, but it's cruel to exterminate them.

>>17866207
nah man. Thats a shitty reason

Kubrick did film the Moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he demanded that they actually film it on the Moon.

File: 1e48392d8df59bcfbc11f7decbcac7a1155839151e5fece526e011d44ccd468e.jpg (48KB, 394x406px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 394x406px

>>17866214
You got a better explanation?

File: Argument.jpg (370KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1296x968px

>>17866176
This guy gets it.

ITT:
>"What the fuck? Both explanations make sense. BUT WHICH IS THE REAL ONE? HOW DO I CHOOSE THE CORRECT PATH?"

>>17866219
they didnt meet aliens.

If they ever meet aliens they are going to jerk off so hard with it. It will be the greatest discovery of all time. How would you keep them secret anyway? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

>>17866241
Obviously they would be in on the conspiracy too. Humanity is a cash crop for these beings. It's in every religious book there is, the apocalypse; the big "harvest" at the end.

Why do you think that Death, in general human mythology carries a scythe?

>>17866248
because it symbolizes harvest which has many symbolic implications

>>17866254
...Yeah, I dunno. The idea of harvest is pretty clearly "things die for the profit of other things."

>>17865429
Who was holding the camera for that shot?

File: thecrucifixion.jpg (38KB, 620x228px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x228px

>>17866262
if you take it literally, yes.

It could also, among many other things, mean that death harvests your soul and brings it to god.

But yeah, for all we know we could indeed be some kind of farm or lab for our alien overlords. Has a nice lovecraftian touch to it

>>17866280
it was remote controled

>>17860833
Not fake. We've shot TONS of manned rockets into space since then, and there's PLENTY of proof of that. I've seen many go up with my own eyes down in Florida. Why spend billions on working rockets if your just gonna shoot a movie? Lol. There's no logic there.

I suppose it's possible the landing itself was faked, but I doubt it. That craft would have been lost for a very long time in the earths orbit if it didn't slingshot back around the moon

>>17866282
>if you take it literally, yes.

Occam's Razor, no? I thought skeptics were really into that.

>>17866286
1) Build rocket
2) Go to space
3) Fake moon landing, to save time / money
4) Because lunar modules with 3 stage propulsion systems are more complex
5) than just 2-stage rocket systems, and a movie set.

>>17866286
>"I've seen many go up with my own eyes down in Florida."

Rockets are sent up to reinforce the idea of space and the ever expanding universe. It is a perversion of the truth. Everything is always a little bit skewed. I highly implore you to do some research because there is some type of barrier preventing things from going too far up. Just please do more research, do not believe anything 100%.

>>17866290
What do you mean? The "grim reaper" is not real, anon. It is indeed the easiest assumption that a fictional character proves nothing about the real world.
Learn more about terms like oocams razor before you use them

I don't think the moon landing was a conspiracy, but fucking JFK....that shit has numerous flaws. That whole era of 50's, 60's, and 70's was overall creepy in terms of government.

File: 5334O2 854.jpg (61KB, 650x487px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 650x487px

>>17866337
>The "grim reaper" is not real, anon.

But the first season of "Dead Like Me" was cool. The second season pretty much instantly turned into crap however.

>>17863491
No one died in the challenger explosion.

>>17863491
How would you debunk "hurr that is clearly all fake! every evidence is just not real!!! LALALALA SHILL"
because that seems to be the gist of those

>>17863768
>THE CHANNEL IS LITERALLY "VideoFromSpace" AND HAS CONNECTIONS TO NASA

WOOOOOW, REALLY GOOD PROOF YOU GOT THERE, SHERLOCK

File: 1461106075398.jpg (35KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 250x250px

>>17864237
WTF IS GOING ON HERE?

>>17867368
Why does that mean it's not proof? Which of his arguments are you challenging?

>>17867370
CAPTAIN TURKEY
WHAT ELSE?

>>17867421
have you missed his follow up video in which he admits that it wasn't impossible to fake the moon landing?

>>17867494
Yes. Link it.

>>17867773
look it up yourself maggot
it's called for jarrah or something

landing is real but footage is faked

>there are people who -actually- believe livestreaming from the goddamn moon was possible back in 1960s in this thread

>>17867787
You mean this shit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zhZqiSe5c

Because none of that debunks what Collins says. It's like listening to a flatearther "debunk" Niel Degrasse Tyson by just ranting about a bunch of irrelevant shit.

>>17867813
no, you idiot
collins made another video after being called out by jarrah. he officially changed his stance from "impossible to fake," which was the entire point of his origianl video, to "bloody unlikely"

>none of that debunks what collins says
even collins disagrees

oh, and jarrah made another video to collins reply, BTFO'ing him once again. but you're probably not going to watch all of that because obviously you don't care about truth

so, eat shit

>>17867810
Like I thought this was obvious

y'all check out the movie "Moonwalkers'. It takes a funny spin on this whole idea.

>>17867845
Oh, you mean this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-TelJ75pzP4

Where he completely destroys Jerrah White. And he doesn't admit it wasn't impossible to fake the moon landing, only one specific aspect of a specific point he made, only about Apollo 11.

>>17867899
loving evey laugh

>>17867928
Try watching it again. He's not saying what you think he's saying. He's smarter than you, and not above using sarcasm.

>>17867950
Sarcasm is a horrible thing to use when seriously responding to the argument of a conspiracy theory.

>>17867958
>seriously responding
>conspiracy theorist

Honestly humor is the only logical response.

It's not about convincing Jerrah White. He's irrelevant. He's going to keep on being a kook no matter how much evidence you show that guy.

It's about the rest of us.

You're not Jerrah White, are you?

>>17867950
you can't even add 1 and 1 together so i'm suprsided you think that guy is smart

>>17867983
I said theory, not theorist. You either address the idea or the person, and I give a fuck about the person. Try again, faggot, but this time with logic.

>>17867985
*surprised
eh, time for a nap

>>17867985
and now the shills resort to bratty child tactics. remember these are like adults paid to do this.

>>17867985
You think the moon landing was a hoax, so you're in no position to judge intelligence.

>>17868041

honestly you think people are paid to post disinformation on a message board for japanese cartoons

>>17867899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE6OIPlQ3-8

Shortly after Jarrah made this Collins responded that he was done

>>17868049
>You think the moon landing was a hoax, so you're in no position to judge intelligence.
Haha just like people who thought CIA was funding and laundering money through modern expressionism haha dummies lol.

>>17867899
He makes a good point about a unified theory about the hoax.
People avoid giving details about how exactly they think things got faked. Please provide a complete hypothesis instead of just spouting "hurr this fake"

>>17867993
in this case the theory itself deserves humor

>>17869364
Humor is fine. Demeaning pretense-of-logical-upper-hand sarcasm isn't.

>>17868053
because you know /x/ has so much japanese cartoons on it

>>17865785
great counter-argument

>>17863491

>Taking all challengers.

Subtle, but amusing.

>>17864043
>>This conspiracy is really just a conspiracy!

This sums up /x/ so effectively.

>>17869381
He's got the logical upperhand because he has that luxury. He's right.

>>17869504
No, if he has logic it only matters if he shows it. You don't gain the upper hand by merely declaring it. That makes you a faggot, not a logician.

File: Schocked.png (311KB, 637x606px)

311KB, 637x606px

>>17865429
>footage of them leaving the moons surface

HOLD THE FUCK UP!
How did they bring back the video tape if they launched without it?
Who the hell did they leave behind to film them leaving and angle the camera of the ship going up????

>>17869898
James Keating was the third man on the moon, a true patriot who valiantly sacrificed his life to take the footage to complete the conspiracy. It was then shot back to Earth via a much smaller one-off module that performed re-entry unaided, flew through the window of the Oval Office and landed on President Nixon's desk.

>>17869515
If some people continue to ignore evidence and fail to follow basic logical conclusions one has the right to stop engaging in serious discussion and start to openly mock them

File: 13-quarantine.jpg (374KB, 954x691px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 954x691px

>>17869898
>footage of them leaving the moons surface
>HOLD THE FUCK UP!
>How did they bring back the video tape if they launched without it?

Umm, beamed it back to Earth like they did with the live images of them walking on moon.

>Who the hell did they leave behind to film them leaving and angle the camera of the ship going up????

If they can fly to the moon figuring out how to set up a camera to do that would be trivial.

>>17869898
>>17866283

>>17861499
People try to use this excuse for the moon landing being real but I've never seen an image showing the flag from Earth.

>>17871193


>>17861594
>>17861623
>>17861639

File: 15797385.jpg (125KB, 800x618px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x618px

>>17860833
To be able to take a photo like this you would have to be a very good photographer. Since we haven't been to the moon, the lighting conditions were unpredictable. Also there were no viewfinders on their cameras so how could they take perfect shots like this? Remember their cameras were mounted on their chest. Camera positioning was crucial. Look at where it says "united states". Google for more images. There are too many details that you just can't ignore.

>>17871893
>lighting conditions were unpredictable
if the effects of atmosphere on light are understood and the atmosphere of the moon is measured then I don't see why you think it would be any less predictable than any other scientific measurement.
>no viewfinders
I've seen this explained - the pictures were cropped to make them level. The full picture is at an angle and takes in more of the surroundings.

>>17871893
>lighting conditions are unpredictable.

Anon, it's the moon. There is no atmosphere. There are no clouds. There is no fog, haze, or smog. One single day there lasts 30 some earth days.

The lighting on the moon is 100% predictable. At any given location, the lighting conditions can be predicted with confidence thousands of years in the future.

>>17871893
>To be able to take a photo like this you would have to be a very good photographer

Please look through these

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157659052908231

Maybe 80% of those photographs are badly framed. They made so many that some of them happened to be quite decent

File: 1465962015001.jpg (131KB, 505x531px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 505x531px

>>17861442
>>17861499

>>17871893
>all opinions

>>17872547
That's not a subject of opinion, anon.

The claim that the lighting on the moon is unpredictable is a false statement.

>>17872528
>i dont know shit about spacefare

>>17872528
Except for the gold foil, I don't see anything in the picture on that list. Also I don't remember any gold foil for sale last time I ran to Home Depot.

>>17861528
maybe you dont understand what hes saying. many governments are themselves governed by international oversight and groups like the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and others. Perhaps all government is an international system rigged against the people. russians/americans. two sides of the same government .

>>17871255
Yeah if you believe those, I've got a face on Mars you might be interested in.

Worthy read if you're not very small-minded/already firmly decided anything outside your worldview is schizophrenic nonsense: http://www.sherryshriner.com/cooper/majestic_12.htm

>>17861512
That was beautiful. I appreciate your creativity mane.

>>17861512
leave the drugs man

(1/2)

>Applying Hitler's concept of the "big lie" the artificial extraterrestrial threat was nurtured and built into an always present possibility over the next 50 years until a large percentage of the worlds population found themselves believing in alien ships, extraterrestrial visitation, alien mutilation of animals, and alien abductions of humans with absolutely no proof that extraterrestrials exist anywhere in the universe much less that any have ever visited this planet.

>The artificial threat is further advanced through the mind control programming of Marxists in Hollywood, television, advertising, publications, and the uFOOLogy movement all of which are in the complete control of the Illuminati and the Intelligence community. Fear is instilled through the incidental use of terror inspired by the cattle and animal mutilation byproducts of the governments radiation monitoring projects and the so-called "alien abduction" scenario induced by state-of-the-art and extremely sophisticated mind control operations.

>To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created and the Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and at a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.

>>17873165
(2/3 --- 2 isn't enough, fucking 4chan limiting 2000 words to a post)

>All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on Apollo 13 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (not the one you know), and the transition from the old to the new. Exploration of the moon stopped because it was impossible to continue the hoax without being ultimately discovered... and they ran out of pre-filmed episodes.

>No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology.

>The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, the solar radiation, cosmic radiation, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.

>>17873169
>The head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program is now the Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong on the moon's surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.

>The effect upon the people of the world was that, if we could go to the moon, other creatures from other worlds could travel to our Earth. The escalation of the artificial alien threat scenario since that time is obvious and transparent.

William Cooper

>>17873149
This one is better formatted, has the pictures that one left out, and some paragraphs that for some reason just aren't in that one, BTW: http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm

No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology.

The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings

If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum... and that is not even taking into consideration any effects of cosmic radiation, Solar flares, micrometeorites, etc. NASA tells us the moon has no atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the vacuum of space.

Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter. The faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower the molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that point where all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold, molecules must be present.

>>17873195
A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known to us. There are so few molecules present in most areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.

Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect the vacuum. Radiant heat from the sun travels through the vacuum of space but does not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has no affect whatsoever until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will increase in direct proportion to the radiant energy which is absorbed by matter. The time it takes to heat matter exposed to direct sunlight in space is determined by its color, its elemental properties, its distance from the sun, and its rate of absorption of radiant heat energy. Space is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold.

Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.

>>17873203
NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.

Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a "vacuum bottle" filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later... and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.

>>17873209
The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space... an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.

NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.

On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man.

What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100 degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of space.

>>17873215
As proof examine the Lunar Lander on display in the Smithsonian Institute and notice the shrouded and encased cone of the rocket engine INSIDE the Lander which is attached above the rocket nozzle at the bottom center of the Lander. It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon. In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was "said" to be on the moon the engine is absent. Then examine the Lunar Lander simulator and you will see exactly where the fake footage was filmed.

It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander. Also measure the inside dimensions of the actual Lander and you will see that the astronauts (liars) could not have possibly left or entered in their suits through that hatch. Notice the position of the hinge of the hatch and then examine the Lunar Lander training simulator and measure all the dimensions noted above taking care to note the position of the hinge on the much larger hatch and you may become "illumined"... so to speak.

>>17873149
There's a difference between being small minded and being a gullible chump who would believe anything.

>>17873217
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are impossible to use and that the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dexterous work whatsoever when filled with 5 psi over ambient pressure either in a vacuum or in the earth's atmosphere. NASA actually showed film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their EVAs on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... a condition that would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in almost immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.

If you don't believe it try it yourself... it is a very simple experiment and does not require a rocket scientist to perform. These are just a few of over a hundred very simple and very easy to prove valid scientific reasons why NASA and the Apollo Space Program are two of the biggest lies ever foisted upon the unsuspecting and trusting People of the world.

>>17873220
We attempted to obtain data on Solar activity and in particular Solar flares which may have been active during the Apollo Moon Missions. We found that data is available for any day of any year during which data has been collected EXCEPT the days and hours of all of the Apollo Moon shots. That data can not be obtained from any government agency including NASA, NOAA, or the Naval Observatory. This is data that is normally collected and would have been used in calculating the dates of launch, dates and times of EVAs, and extreme radiation hazard. It would have been monitored during times of extra vehicular activity (EVA) of the astronauts while on the moon... that is if any astronauts were ever on the moon. The data is not available because it would demonstrate that the so-called astronauts would have been fried crisp. They would have returned to the earth DEAD if they had actually attempted any such missions.

In addition most, if not all, of the photos, films, and videotape of the Apollo Moon Missions are easily proven to be fake. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of studio photography, studio lighting, and the reality of Lunar physics can easily prove that NASA faked the visual records of the Apollo Space Program. No color film known to man, then or now, had or has the latitude to produce the excellent detail found in shadow and highlighted areas of the photographs supposedly taken on the moon. Any professional photographer can tell you that those photographs could only have been produced in a controlled environment using studio lighting and could not possibly have been produced in full sunlight in a vacuum on the moon. Some are so obviously fake that when the discrepancies are pointed out to unsuspecting viewers an audible gasp has been heard. Some have actually gone into a mild state of shock. Some People break down and cry. I have seen others become so angry that they have ripped the offending photos to shreds while screaming incoherently.

>>17873229
Kleinknect, the head of Operations at NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now is now a 33rd Degree Freemason who's brother is the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong on the surface of the Moon (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin. All of the senior officials of NASA have been, and are, members of the Illuminati, Marxists, or communists.

The Soviet Union planned only one manned moon mission. Soviet cosmonauts related to me that their astronauts were literally COOKED by the extreme radiation in space when sent into high orbit through the Van Allen Belt. The USSR never again attempted to send men into or above the Van Allen Belt. If man could not survive the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belt how could they put a man on the Moon? The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program.

The effect upon the people of the world was that if we could go to the moon other creatures from other worlds could travel to our Earth. The escalation of the artificial alien threat scenario since that time is obvious.

The recent revelations of the fraudulent nature of NASA and the Apollo space program by the Intelligence Service and others has resulted in a flood of propaganda, television programs, and films designed to keep the sheople trapped in an ignorant deep sleep. The most ambitious are "Apollo 13" and "From the Earth to the Moon", both involving the actor/producer Tom Hanks. The latter opens with a monologue by Mr. Hanks who walks forward revealing a huge representation of the "God" Apollo (Sun, Osiris, lost word, etc.) guiding his chariot pulled by 4 horses through the heavens.

>>17873218
There's no point in responding to you, I'm just doing it.

>all these salty ruskies
lol

>>17873220
That's some find copy pasta.

>people can't do any dextruous work when filled with psi over ambient pressure.

What an interesting claim. The atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 at sea level. But at 30,000 feet it's closer to 3.8. Have you ever flown in a jet liner before? Were you able to move around? Last I checked, 11 psi > 5 psi.

>The suits couldn't take enough water

It only took about five pounds of water to keep them cool. I think a physically fit well trained astronaut could lift five pounds, don't you? And that's earth weight. A lot less in space.

>space is the perfect insulator.

lol, no. Heat is lost radiatively. Anybody who knows basic physics knows that.

>>17873327
Of course, I'm not the person who wrote this, I just posted it, but I'll bite: it says 5 psi over ambient pressure, which is surely different from what you're saying. The five pounds of water would quite quickly absorb the supposed heat, and then where would that heat go? Where would extra cool water be piped from?

As for heat being lost through space electromagnetically, I'll admit Cooper fucked up on that, yet he's at least close in that this heat loss through radiation would be VERY VERY slow.

>>17873365
The water sublimates into space.

The ambient pressure outside the suit is zero. The ambient pressure inside the suit is about 14 psi. The difference between them is irrelevant. The suit is jointed. There's no force preventing it from moving about.

>heat loss is very very slow.

No it isn't. If you were dumped out into space, and you ignored the problem of breathing, you'd very quickly freeze to death. Heating is a more important concern than cooling.

>>17860833
All of you fuckers need to play Kerbal Space Program. Getting to the moon really isn't that hard

File: HiRISE_face.jpg (494KB, 1277x958px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1277x958px

>>17873147
???

>>17873178
>>>17873169
>>The head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program is now the Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong on the moon's surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.

You got any evidence at all of anything you claim?

File: 1969NeilArmstrongonMoonMasonapron[1].jpg (66KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x769px

>>17874599

File: 1437212184451.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>>17874620

>>17874670
skip to around 16:24 to hear it from the horse's mouth

https://youtu.be/Tzm_cXnrmRA?t=16m24s

>>17861442

>t.C.I.A

File: 1465191102931.jpg (20KB, 360x261px)

20KB, 360x261px

>>17863181
Go grab a fucking telescope and have a look yourself retard, he handed you instructions to if you really think they're fake.

Or is seeing the landing site yourself "damage control." maybe the shadow of the LEM is a hallucination from the Chem Trails or the Fluride eh?

How about the reflectors on the moon done for laser rangefinding in nearly all the apollo missions including apollo 11? those are fake too I take it?

>>17874677

huh really makes you think doesnt it?

>>17861623
>https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/

yo faggot just went to the apollo 11 landing site. care to explain why the shadows are casted the way they are? it must be those pesky nibearus and they triple binary solar stars whoa xD FUCKING FAGGOT KYS

File: wow.jpg (142KB, 1569x413px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1569x413px

>>17874845

forgot pic

File: pepestatr.gif (924KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 500x281px

>>17874834
>>17874845

The objects were sent there, but no humans.

File: 1467114587996.png (94KB, 260x260px)

94KB, 260x260px

>>17874847
>What the fuck is a wide angle lens panorama shot?

>>17874851
So they launched saturn Vs with people on board and just fucking kept the crew in orbit for a few weeks just so they could secretly launch a second rocket to fly the equipment there for real.

Brilliant.

>>17874854

please tell me where the sun is smarty pants

>>17874871
Get your phone out and take a panorama shot in the camera app.

And ask yourself this very very simple question, did you take a singular flat image or did you curve the image around you in a cylinder to give the illusion of a singular large image?

threads like this remind me of why /x/ is such a pile of shit.

>>17874854

lol you actually replied fucko

File: proton_1969.png (54KB, 1001x397px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1001x397px

>>17873229
>We found that data is available for any day of any year during which data has been collected EXCEPT the days and hours of all of the Apollo Moon shots.

I was curious to see how full of shit you were. Very is the answer.

Here are two plots of the omnidirectional solar proton flux in 4 energy ranges over 1969, most of the relevant data that year comes from IMP-5.

As you can see data is not collected for every day of the year and data is very much available for the day of the Apollo 11 landing, July 21 (day 202). It was not difficult to find. As you can see there is a very small proton event that day.

http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/ow_data.html#2

Feel free to check the other missions, for me one is enough to refute your bullshit.

I get that you want to believe in this conspiracy but downright lying is pretty cheap.

>>17874858
Why are you getting so upset?

>>17864531
> a special device not available for common people and only used by "scientists"
soooo a powerful telescope?
are you literally this dumb fuck retarded?

There's so much evidence supposing the fact that they never went to the moon:
Firstly, if you look at the pictures they took while on the moon you can notice shadows pointing different ways. So that means that there were other light sources other than the sun. Secondly, you don't see any stars in any of the pictures. How is this possible? If they were actually on the moon then you'd see millions of more stars than you'd see anywhere here on earth. And lastly, if you look at the video you can see that the American flag is waving like hell. Isn't there suposed to be no atmosphere on the moon? How in God's name is the flag waving if there is no wind? It makes no sense.

>>17874977
theres a difference between a powerful telescope and a telescope that scientists use for seeing

File: 1464041869664.jpg (57KB, 960x949px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x949px

>>17874988
>pic related
>its me trying to understand your logic

>>17874847
>how do shadows work
>how does perspective work
>hurr durr, I'm retarded, therefor it must be fake

lrn2photography or kys

>>17874988
no. not at all. scientists arent wizards or something

>>17863318
>Good evidence

You mean circumstantial evidence. Your basically saying he could have done it therefore he did. This is not substantial evidence, its not even any evidence at all.

I could be a six foot transexual lesbian. But I'm not.

>>17863347
Isn't this the plot to second Captain America film

>>17867368
>Le Ad hominem
>Le circular logic
>Le keyboard stuck in caps lock

>>17874871
It's behind where the shadows are. So you see where the shadow of the camera man is? It's behind him. And you see where the shadow is in that crater? It's behind that. The crater isn't in front of him, it's two his right. The shadows appear to point in different directions because it's a panorama shot, and it's distorting a curved image into a flat picture.

What you can do is print the picture out on paper. Cut it out. Hold it in front of your face until it forms the same field of view in the picture, and all the shadows will line up.

>>17875262
>film

It's kino, get it right summerfag

>>17864126
>>17864130
>>17861442
we need ids on /x/

>>17873327
5 psi versus the vacuum of space?

good luck with balloon fingers bud

>>17874834
>How about the reflectors on the moon
russians placed a reflector as well

with a robot

and it reflects even better

>>17876401
Well you wouldn't be doing any watch repair but picking up rocks would be easy enough.

File: armstrongglove.jpg (212KB, 1987x1013px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1987x1013px

>>17876453
pic

File: 700_9188392ddc94251feba6df7ec79f854b.jpg (34KB, 599x315px)

34KB, 599x315px

Yes, Kubrick faked the moon landing for NASA and he left a trail of bread crumbs in his movies (The Shining) for those paying close enough attention to find them.

You can see he used the same background editing technique in the films 2001: A Space Odyssey, and his fake moon landing.

He was a phenomenal director, the US/NASA noticed this when Kubrick asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B-52 bombers for Dr.StrangeLove, but was turned down.Undaunted by the rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to create the B-52 in flight, which for that time was unprecedented. Impressed by his artfulness, NASA recruited Kubrick to make the moon landing in an effort to beat Soviet Russia to space.

Kubrick also had a reputation for being a notoriously nasty negotiator, in return for faking the moon landing he was given a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science film: 2001: A Spacey Odyssey; and he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

inb4 non-believers inevitably respond to this, calling me a conspiracy nut, without having done a droplet of research into Stanley Kubrick's life.

>>17876503
[citation needed]

>>17876453
>picking up rocks
activity log was way more than that

>>17864011
you got it

but for real tho Kubrick was mixed up in all this, my bet is on us actually landing on the moon but the screening for the benefit of the public being faked

the evidence in the rest of his filmography seems to point in that direction at least

>>17860833
It certainly appears so.

>>17865701
>>17865710
There's lots of shit in The Shining to make it disorienting for the viewer. There's an impossible window in Ullman's office, and the large central pyramid structure of the hotel is completely gone in the scenes where they're outside.

Man you gotta admit, that would be one Hell of an Imdb credit, "the fucking moon landing"

>>17873233
>The Soviet Union planned only one manned moon mission. Soviet cosmonauts related to me that their astronauts were literally COOKED by the extreme radiation in space when sent into high orbit through the Van Allen Belt. The USSR never again attempted to send men into or above the Van Allen Belt. If man could not survive the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belt how could they put a man on the Moon? The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program.

This is absolute bullshit. The Soviets never ever sent cosmonauts beyond the LEO. Also, they scrapped their moon program because their rocked design was a failure.

>>17877850
Kek

>>17863324
>"MAN NEVER WALKED ON THE MOON"

>Actually theres objective proof we did

>"M-MAN WALKED ON THE M-MOON BUT THE V-VIDEO WAS F-F-FAKE!"

Backpedeling 101

File: 063372ab44086449c56dfcfd303f2157.jpg (22KB, 236x303px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x303px

>>17863447
conveniently omitting the fact that greys have been portrayed on cave paintings and also in egyptian art.

kill yourself, you are too gullible and stupid to exist

>>17865672
you're a retard.

there would still be flame and smoke from the blast, as the propellant has it's own oxygen supply. granted the flame and smoke would not appear the same in a vacuum but it would still be there nonetheless.

you have any other senseless bullshit you wanna trot out to make yourself sound smart?