Let's talk about the moon

"no"

File: image.jpg (29KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 225x225px

>scientists still debate the origin of the moon

>you can't say it's camera artifacts

It's camera artifacts

>>18101378
Okay shill.

Regardless, someone want to explain this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyYto9H85Gw#t=3m56s

Why say wink? Why say wink?

>why say wink?

>>18101310
only roleplay threads are allowed on /x/ you faggot DELETE THIS

>>18101310
>you can't say it's camera artifacts

Why can't I? That photo looks like shit.

If that isn't a camera artifact, why hasn't it been introduced in any other photo?

>scientists still debate the origin of the moon

They debate details of the origin of the moon, they don't debate 22 mile high skyscrapers on the moon. Because that's retarded.

>>18101383
Fun fact, Lunacognita AKA Cary Martynuik has been missing since 2013.

>>18101389
>Be me
>Captain in the Secret Space Program, 69th Space Marines
>Know that OP is correct, and you are a fag
>Role playing is childish and detracts from intellectual discussion of the paranormal

>>18101399
Boy, it sure is easy to make light of something that literally no one can see except the rich an powerful. If only the earth and moon didn't rotate in such a way that we only ever see the same side of the moon from Earth 100% of the time. Then we wouldn't need satellites to take hundreds of thousands of pictures of the other side for us to see it.

OH WAIT, you're saying we don't have hundreds of pictures of the "dark" side of the moon? We're still mostly focused on the side we can see? Man, that sure is a bummer that all of our tax money being utilized for moon research hasn't funded even a single simple satellite to orbit the moon and take pictures of the backside.

But that would be retarded I guess. No one cares about that. Let's debate why the moon rang like a gong when it was struck with man-made rockets. Let's debate why there's gravity wells that make landing on the moon more complex than landing back on Earth. Let's discuss why Nasa shot another rocket at the moon to discover water vapor when they already discovered water vapor back in the 70s.

>>18101423
>OH WAIT, you're saying we don't have hundreds of pictures of the "dark" side of the moon?


No, I'm saying we DO have hundreds of pictures of the far side of the moon, and only that burry piece of shit one covered in artifacts shows what you're talking about.

Which is why we can dismiss it as crap.

MoonMoon is back

>>18101432
Post a link to the publicly available NASA archive of the dark side of the moon pictures then.

>>18101383
#whysaywink

>>18101383
If it was omitted for public release why not exponge it permently, like they do with top secret files so know one every knows but those involved. You don't murder someone with a gun and then just leave your finger prints all over the crime scene

>>18101439
http://www.space.com/11186-photo-side-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter.html

File: parrot.jpg (46KB, 635x817px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 635x817px

Hey moonie, it's been a while

>>18101451
NASA isn't known for being the most...competent at covering their tracks.

>literally putting scotch tape over "suspect" moon anomalies
>using the photoshop blur tool in recent pictures of same said anomalies
>using fucking true black photoshop coloring to paint false horizons into various lunar pictures
This is shit you can verify easily yourself. It's actually sad how poorly they attempt to cover up some of their "oopsies."

It's also obvious why they don't try too hard; most people are too retarded to question what they are spoonfed, and that's the tiny percentage that even cares about following NASA research in the first place. It'd be like if you murdered a random hobo; you could leave behind all sorts of evidence but no one would care enough to look into it. It's sad that most people consider the moon to be so boring that it's the hobo in this situation.

>>18101455
>woooow so many hundreds of pictures

>>18101464
I literally have zero idea who you're talking about.

File: Well do you.jpg (7KB, 207x253px)

7KB, 207x253px

>>18101474

>>18101310
Serious question.
Do you have autism?

>>18101493
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22pk2polNeA
I'll post more later but that should be enough to make you go "huh"

>>18101378
>>scientists still debate the origin of the moon

They do, you stupid fuck.

>>18101526
Psuedoscientists don't count as real scientists.

>>18101511
Serious question.
Are you a homosexual?

>>18101530
No, are you autistic?

>>18101524
>that should be enough to make you go "huh"
made me go "huh, retards really will believe anything if you put some eerie music to a heavily one-sided slideshow"

>>18101540
>give proof of doctored images
>get "witty" reply
>implying you aren't a shill
I hope you're getting paid to shill, because at least then you have an excuse.

>>18101538
The answer is clearly YES

>>18101529
Atheism is pseudoscience.

>>18101547
I'm not denying that the images are doctored, but what does it really tell you? For the first set where they remove the stars from the background image of the earth do you think they're legit trying to hide something about it? It couldn't possibly be that they're trying to make a presentable photo for publication and the like.
Not to mention, those colour grading spikes could very easily be from formatting to digital imagery, which is known to be fucky.

>>18101571
Op is retarded

File: nmWH5xV.jpg (139KB, 367x451px)

139KB, 367x451px

>>18101310
>scientists still debate the origin of the moon

>>18101571
Atheism doesn't claim to be a science.

>>18101480
>hundreds
>he didn't read the text

It's literally thousands. What's with conspiracy theorists and the inability to read? Oh, wait....

>>18101573
The problem is they have denied that stars are visible from the surface of the moon. So when there is evidence of editing, it makes them look bad. Furthermore, NASA shouldn't doctor things for presentability in the first place; just give the public the pictures. There's no reason they should waste their time doing something like that aside from protecting their public image. And there is at the very least a conspiracy involving just that; their image (aka "America is great" propaganda).

We know for a fact that the pressurized suits the astronauts wore made their hands hurt very badly, and some even lost their fingernails. This is on the public record, and yet there exists only a couple photographs of this early issue. Yet the "recovery" pictures show them with perfect nails.

In this situation, I don't think there's anything there that implies they're "hiding the truth" in a grand cosmic sense, but it's obvious that they present the public fake/staged pictures to make themselves look better to both the American public and the world stage. What would the Soviet Union have thought if we presented astronauts with their fingernails black and/or falling off?

The point I'm trying to make here is simple; NASA lies frequently, and they are caught lying frequently. They still lie about this particular incident, but we're [supposedly] past the cold war, so why keep it a secret? Why not admit they made a mistake in the original suit design and apologize publicly for misleading the American people? I prefer a humble, truthful group compared to a bunch of lying talking heads.

>>18101530
You know it, baby. ;)

>>18101571
Good thing Atheists never claim the lack of belief in god(s) is a science, then, sure lucked out on that one.

>>18101573
>>18101731
ITT: Morons who don't understand what "exposure" means in regards to photography

>>18101731
>We know for a fact that the pressurized suits the astronauts wore made their hands hurt very badly, and some even lost their fingernails.
Source, please.

>>18101474
Hypothesis: NASA doesn't need to cover their tracks for the sake of the public. They only need to make sure that their idiot, corporate overlords who grant them funding are satisfied that the "ants below" don't catch on to anything.

The workers at NASA (some of them, it's full of people with different ideologies) are hoping that others will catch onto the charade, and educate others. They're possibly disappointed at the outcome so far.

>>18101474

Don't you have a 9/11 conspiracy thread to start, you giant faggot?

>>18101731
>The point I'm trying to make here is simple; NASA lies frequently, and they are caught lying frequently. They still lie about this particular incident, but we're [supposedly] past the cold war, so why keep it a secret? Why not admit they made a mistake in the original suit design and apologize publicly for misleading the American people? I prefer a humble, truthful group compared to a bunch of lying talking heads.

Pride funds their research. They are a military organization, you know this, right? They are a part of the air force. They report to the U.S. Federal government. Pride funds their research.

NASA is not actually a better space exploration organization than any other. The U.S. isn't actually a superior nation compared to the others. We have the freshest world resources, which we're consuming at an accelerated pace, and this is a finite bonus for now, but we're not actually humans that any more or less advance than approximately all of the other humans on the world. Not *really*.

So in order to be "first" on the moon, and have the "most" of any particular scientific evidence, NASA must use manipulation and funding through pride to create the fabricated perspective that they are the "best." The only way to achieve best status without resorting to manipulation of evidence, and deceptive tactics is to authentically be the best, which NASA is not, because they're not a world space organization, just a tiny fraction of the world's resources, concentrated sharply onto a few groups of individuals with disjointed ideologies and value systems.

>>18101474
I'd say "Wow, they actually let nutjobs like you use a computer?", but I feel like you'd actually go out and try to kill someone for being a skinwalker or reptilian or some shit if you didn't have a way to vent your crazy.

Do you have autism, op?

/x/ has become a place for fedora tipping atheists to "troll".

No fun allowed. Shame.

>>18101846
:' (

>>18101846
>anyone who disagrees with me is a troll
Nice ego there, Narcissus.

>>18101835
Who brought up aliens, again?
>>18101474 sure didn't.

Why would you bring them up? Why are you not commenting on doctored photos? You could have presented a rational theory, like "maybe they're hiding man-made probes they set up for the sake of national security."

Why jump straight into the buzzwords?

>the lady doth protest too much, methinks

>>18101480
Are you just gonna ignore that there arent giant fucking towers on the one or two that were shown then?

also: "The photo is actually a mosaic of thousands of different lunar farside images taken by the lunar orbiter's Wide Angle Camera."

>>18101310
>You can't say it's camera artifacts
its camera artifacts

call the cops

>>18101310
Camera artifacts / some tinfoil photoshop

>>18101846
Being an atheist has nothing to do with thinking the idea of an alien colony on the side of the moon we "cant see" is retarded.

It's not about ruining fun, it's just stupid, and if you think that everyone should believe everything they think is cool for no reason then you're stupid too.

>>18101423
where are the domes and megaliths?

>>18101846
>no fun allowed
If you want to roleplay, go to /tg/.
If you want to discuss some serious shit, let's discuss it. But there are plenty of things we can discuss about the moon without resorting to bullshit claims.

Irrefutable proof has been given. The tower is bullshit.
Is there anything else we can discuss about the moon? How about possible colonization?

>>18101731
The policy tends to be. Wait for everyone involved to be dead before we can debrief the public. They atleast try to respect those that serve their country(don't bring up POW, mk ultra, gulf war shit plz).

Also better watch out OP this could be you next
>>18101403

>>18101423
>Let's debate why the moon rang like a gong when it was struck with man-made rockets. Let's debate why there's gravity wells that make landing on the moon more complex than landing back on Earth. Let's discuss why Nasa shot another rocket at the moon to discover water vapor when they already discovered water vapor back in the 70s.

Sources? I'd like to know more about these happenings. Never heard of them before.

File: main-qimg-cca383155d3a5c0b6b3f40a909861392-c.jpg (61KB, 572x440px)

61KB, 572x440px

>>18101731
>I worked at NASA, in charge of the rework of the Hubble Space Telescope's website. At that time, they heavily used Photoshop, and other graphics tools, to manipulate the kind of space images you're talking about.
>This did not just involve cleaning up an image, or stitching some together, or adding marks to show where something was. It also included altering the fundamental way images looked, to make them prettier, more desirable, and so on.
>In fact, many of the most beautiful graphics that NASA uses as its hallmarks, to drum up support, are in this sense largely fake. The famous Eagle Nebula pic (I'll attach a version of it), for example, was originally greyscale, the colorization is completely human-added.
>So its award-winning beauty, the staple go-to promotional tool of the Office of Public Outreach, is just a PR gimmick.
>This is consistent with what I learned about NASA, in general. The sole focus of every part of the organization I encountered was to profit through increased funding, using whatever means was necessary, including PR gimmicks. They spent a small fortune on a tool to "measure the ozone layer" that added no useful information at all. When I asked why, I was told that having an astronaut pointing an instrument through a shuttle window at the earth, useless though it may be, was a great photo op, to boost funding. The concept of Fear Equals Funding was rife there, as well as an obsession with making sure nothing was done too fast or efficiently, to ensure that budgets were always used up, preferably that projects fell short, even if they could have been done with money to spare.
>This image's beauty is through colors added by humans, through Photoshop or some other tool. The real thing would look nothing like this.
-Kaz Vorpal, NASA contractor

I really don't think NASA is editing out megaliths and moon domes. It's just another government agency obsessed with bureaucracy and PR

>>18101423
>let's discuss why the moon rang like a gong when it was struck with man-made rockets

Because it has a solid crust. Exactly like how the earth rings when there's an earthquake.

>Let's debate why there's gravity wells that making landing on the moon more complex than landing back on earth

There aren't? There's a gravity well for the moon, and there's a gravity well for earth. The gravity well for the moon is much, much smaller than the earth's so that makes both landing and launching much easier on the moon than it does on earth. Also, the moon has no real atmosphere (there's a tiny trace atmosphere), so that makes it a lot easier too.

>Let's discuss why NASA shot another rocket at the moon to discover water vapor when they already discovered water vapor back in the 1970s

The experiment in the 1970s detected a tiny amount of water above the moon's surface in that trace "atmosphere" I just mentioned. The LCROSS experiment of 2009 was to measure water in the lunar soil, you know, UNDER the ground where it had not been previously measured. Also, it was a measurement experiment, not just a detection experiment.

If you'd like to actually discuss the moon, and not just blurry loch ness monsters or whatever you think it is that you see it blurry out of focus pictures, well then we can do that all day.

>>18101474
>government organization
>completely retarded at covering things up
yea, no, i call bullshit
if there were really things on the moon that somebody with power didn't want getting out, we wouldn't even know about it because it would never be allowed to "get out" like these shitty blurred images do

>>18102015
http://www.popsci.com/does-moon-sound-like-bell
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/who-discovered-water-on-the-moon-110774900/
http://news.mit.edu/2013/an-answer-to-why-lunar-gravity-is-so-uneven-0530

Note that the gravity anomalies were a mystery until recently. Also note that the explanation was arrived at via "simulations," not from actual direct evidence.

>>18102055
Ah, cool. Thanks mate.

>>18102035
False. The famous "Pillars of Creation" photo is indeed in false color, but this is because it is a composite image taken with many different cameras, and each color represent a different element or ionization state.

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

Every time NASA releases a photograph that has false color, or any other sort of manipulation, they clearly explain the manipulation and explain why. This is not NASA being deceptive, this is conspiracy theorists being illiterate because they ignore the explanation.

It happened again just a few weeks ago. NASA acquired an image of Jupiter's northern lights, in UV. In order to provide scale, they overlayed the northern lights on an older true color photograph of Jupiter. They explained this in the caption of the photo. And yet Conspiratards made whole youtube videos about it, claiming they caught NASA lying about the images because the "new" image had the same exact clouds as the "old" image, and therefore NASA was lying and the earth is flat.

>>18101731
>NASA lies frequently
>they are caught lying frequently

Cite an example.

>>18101832
>They are a military organization, you know this, right?

Nope. They're civilian.

>They are part of the Air Force

Also no.

>They report to the U.S. Federal Government

Well yes, of course they do. It's not like they're an agency in a state government.

>>18102100
The entirety of the Apollo 11 radio chatter was scripted. Buzz Aldrin admitted it, Neil Armstrong admitted it (in his autobiography, even). NASA to this day will deny this fact if asked, despite it being fairly common knowledge.

>>18102123
>the radio chatter was scripted

Nope.

>Buzz Aldrin admitted it

Nope

>Neil Armstrong admitted it.

Nope. He does claim that he thought about what he was going to say when he first stepped on the moon beforehand. That's a long way from "the entirety of the radio chatter was scripted."

>NASA to this day will deny this fact if asked

Why would they deny it if the astronauts already admitted it.

>It being fairly common knowledge

Well then it should be pretty easy for you to find proof. Good luck.

File: Humans.jpg (23KB, 320x279px)

23KB, 320x279px

>>18101310
Right click
Hide thread

>>18102123
[Citation needed]

>>18101918
Because you're goddamn unstable morons with a tenuous grip on reality.

The moon has to feed.

>>18102142
End yourself.

For me the biggest proof that the Apollo images are simply stages after the real landing took place, is that press conference the team gave after their return.
Wtf did they saw on the moon. They look completely detached from reality.
Poor old Neil couldn't even remember if he saw the stars on the sky or not.

>>18102348
post a link

>>18102232
>projection

>>18101918
Look. Your evidence is pretty damnable.

This necessarily narrows the possibility of those willing disagree with you towards the lower spectrum of rationally minded. Take it from me--you're never going to reach a state where nobody ever disagrees with your hypotheses... not on this planet, anyways. All you can do is narrow that category of people down, until their ability to piece together information and detect fraud from authenticity approaches zero.

All I can say is, if that photo is real, then there's structures on the moon. If it isn't, then there still might be, but there still might not be.

Personally, I think that if there are inhabitants in the moon, then studying the mascons would be the way to figure out their locations. But at the same, time, digging into those locations to verify the hypothesis has a 50% chance of being a grievous mistake, and also murder.

Our best bet is to crowd fund a team of explorers to go up to the moon and simply *knock* on the tower. At some point between now and the rest of the future, this will become a possibility. My experience and intuition tells me that the most difficult challenge will not be finding the money or technologically minded engineers to crowd source a civilian space project, but rather the producers and pilots who will know how to explore potential sites of lunar inhabitants without making an ass of themselves.

I.e. if you think there might be people living on the moon, then digging into their house with a drill is not the correct way to go about discovering that truth.

>>18102348
You mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0

Armstrong very clearly says he didn't see stars from the surface of the moon (which makes sense as the space suit's visor was basically a giant pair of sunglasses, and it was full daylight out), unless he was looking through the optics of special instruments.

As for how they look, they look a bit tired and would rather be home with their families. You you think that means they faked the moon landing, you must be retarded.

>>18101409
Everyone knows you're lying Ami. Der Moon belongs to us Moon-Nazis!

>>18101310
Didn't you do this exact same thread last month anon? Meds ran out again, or have you run out of tinfoil?

>>18102374
>people living
Not people.

>>18102402
TERRIBLE BULLYING OF MOON-NAZIS!
MOON-NAZIS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
:'(

File: anime_dance.gif (483KB, 243x270px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 243x270px

>>18102402
Rude, anon.

Space people (or, "speople") are people too.

>>18102440
Shut up space nigger. Earf is fo Earlings and Earflings only.

>>18102440
>>18102407
More similar to the growth of our minerals here, very slow.

>>18102446
Fuck you Sheriff Root.

File: anime_dance_ts.gif (4MB, 839x464px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 839x464px

>>18102448
I'm still every bit as much of a selfish asshole as I was coming into this life.

But I do acknowledge that people are people, now. Although, I had to be the guy who solved out the mathematical definition of what one unit of personhood was, in order to make that distinction.

>>18101310
In on this thread because controversy.

I like listening to Hoagland's moon episodes with classic Coast to Coast.

>>18101310
http://www.space.com/11186-photo-side-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter.html

Third hit on Google.

>>18102141
It's in Neil's approved Biography, "First Man." He also said it multiple times in various interviews in the 2000's. I'm not going to fucking spoon-feed you. Try reading a book about one of America's greatest heroes yourself.

>>18103008
Nope.

You're the one making the claim, burden's on you.

Until then I'll just dismiss your claim as being full of shit.

>>18101310
>You can't say it's camera artifacts, you can't say it's photo manipulation. This isn't someone outlining vague shapes and claiming

Yes you can. yes it is.

Now that we got this out of the way we can wait patiently until the aliens and monsters reveal themselves.

>>18102350
>He's calling me out on my insane theories backed only by twinky eating nutjobs! M-maybe if I say "projection", no one will notice how loopy I am!

File: hurr-hurr-pot.jpg (149KB, 1200x732px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x732px

>>18103014
Aren't you the one making the positive claim that astronauts landed on the moon?

>Hurr hurr the burden of proof is on YOU!

>>18103008
it's reasonable not to spoon-feed someone. it's not reasonable to expect someone to go buy a book and then read it just to confirm one point in a complex argument.

you sound like you've read the book. you still have a copy? take a pic of that page and post it.

>>18102035
http://www.theonion.com/article/nasa-discovers-distant-planet-located-outside-fund-53595

found this while looking for references to "neil armstrong moon landing script." kind of amusing that in searching for that, I ended up at the onion...

>>18103116
again, not that anon but just because you expect him to prove something doesn't mean he can't expect you to prove something too. if anything, you asking for proof for him just confirms that asking for proof for one's claims is reasonable. and you wouldn't want to be unreasonable.

>>18101423
Citation missing

>>18103116
But anon, there's overwhelming evidence that astronauts landed on the moon, and no honest, substantial evidence that they didn't.

According to you, I'm supposed to believe that the first guy who landed on the moon admitted to faking it.

So why should I believe your stupid, false claim about what Neil Armstrong said, versus what he actually says, and is an eye witness to the moon landing?

Did you even think these things through before you post them? Even a little?

>>18103123
I found a better one while doing the same thing. Very relevant.

http://www.theonion.com/article/conspiracy-theorist-convinces-neil-armstrong-moon--2796

yea yea, lets talk about how nobody seems to wanna go check out that giant tower on lunar far side. its obviously a fucking building or some shit. i wanna go into that thing, take alien hostages, hold them for technology ransoms, and of course rape one of em (m or f doesnt matter i jus wanna raep an ayy lmao cause of all the anal probing theyve done to us) then space ship jack one of their ships and fly back to fuckin earth. land on one of those fucking myan pyramids and convince the indians im a sky god or some shit only to troll the shit out of em, ayy lmao.

>>18101432
Dawg... Have you ever considered that they edit a few things out before releasing these photos? Wasn't NASA government owned?

>>18101474
Kek. That was such a fucked up analogy.

>>18103116
>maybe nobody will notice that I don't understand what 'burden of proof' actually means if I reply with what basically translates to "No, you!"

Delete this.

File: 1466968746300.gif (2MB, 316x213px)

2MB, 316x213px

>>18101310
Fuck off OP. The question here is if the moon is made out of cheese. If so, what kind?

>>18101310
Here's a quote "OP is a gigantic faggot"

>>18101423
Dude, Google Moon is dope. You can explore the whole backside of the moon. Fun times.

>>18104396
Cheddar, obviously.

>>18104037
>13-year-old detected

>>18104379
They COULD do that. But there isn't any evidence. There isn't any explanation as to why they would do it. And NASA isn't the only player with satellite's orbiting the moon, so if they did get caught covering things up they'd be in pretty deep shit.

>>18104447
I respect you're opinion but you are wrong. Its clearly provolone.

>>18104582
Pepper Jack>>>>>>>>>>everything else

>>18101439
>>18101455
Kek

>>18101530
Serious answer. You're autistic.

>>18104543
I dunno. I've always felt as though things are kept from us because society in a whole simply couldn't handle knowing some things. You have a valid point with other satellites. I completely forgot about that.
>Thnx for giving a good argument instead of calling me a retard unlike the majority of this board.

>>18104808
Anon, I still think you're a retard. I was explaining to you why you're a retard, on the dim hopes that you would understand why you are a retard.

It doesn't seem to have worked.

>>18104625
Pepper Jack? More like pepper Jack-shit! Aside from Swiss cheese which has CRATERS in it :o See any correlations?

>>18104815
Oh so you're just like all the other retards on here, who call each other retards? You're a fucking acoustic retard.

>>18104815
not an argument

>>18104820
the argument was already made

>>18104816
Nigga the surface is powdery. So its def gotta be parmesian.

>>18104829
No it wasn't. Even if it was, it was incoherent. Faggot.

>>18104836
You being to retarded to understand it does not mean it's incoherent. Shit, even the other retard was able to get it.

File: 1385765143475.gif (212KB, 501x585px)

212KB, 501x585px

>>18101832

>not a world space organization

Are you some kind of globalist?

>>18104840
>You being to retarded
*You're being TOO retarded
You're still not making a valid argument. Retard.

The moon is great
the moon is lovable
the moon is god

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u5Bh5PJGuI
This clip shows that the best capture of the lunar wave demonstrates the moon is being measurably displaced. Each of the two wave gives the moon the appearance of an object viewed through water. The moon is not what you think it is.

>>18104379

>Dawg

Immediately identified yourself as a dismissible idiot.

>>18104829
>hurr u retarded
>the argument was made

>>18104856
Nice camera artifacts, mongoloid.

>>18104865
Are you capable of understanding the flow of time, anon?

Do you know there were posts made before that one? Do you know there was a conversation going on?

>>18104859
Yeah, I'm sorry that not everyone's a stuck up bitch like you and doesn't understand word play. Retard, DISMISSED.

>>18104878
This has to be b8. This guy is such a cringey retard.

>>18104878
I was actually enjoying the thread, until you began to be a whiny lil bitch.

>>18104891
>>18104884
samefaggy as fuck

>>18104878
Do you have a point to make or are these just more attempts at namecalling. Literally not an argument. Keep trying

>>18104923
No u

>>18104881

Oh no, I understand wordplay. I understand that using modern lingo (most of which sounds unintelligent/unprofessional) in order to sound less aggressive is a valid tactic when trying to get your point across. I just think that it makes one come across as an idiot 9/10 times. Speaking intelligently can make a huge difference in the way your arguments and claims are received.

>>18104947
So now you're being a hypocrite? How is calling me a retard classified as speaking "intelligently"? You also shouldn't try to give lessons on speaking professionally because thus far, you've only come off as desperate in trying to prove yourself in an internet argument.

>>18104947
>can make a huge difference in the way your arguments and claims are received
Unless the other person is so intlectually dishonest to dismiss the whole point because of one slang word.
Not even him, but please go if you cant stand some internet lingo on fucking 4chan

File: 1473186364064.jpg (18KB, 400x382px)

18KB, 400x382px

Odd how eager a certain few are to discredit even speculation, choosing instead to belittle and derail thoughts on a topic that is regularly lied about, defending it as if their truth is an integral aspect of their personally perceived identity.


Really makes you think....

>>18104958

Show me where I, specifically, called you a retard.

>>18104959

It's not that I can't stand it, I just think people can do better.

>>18104815
>>>18104808 (You)
>Anon, I still think you're a retard. I was explaining to you why you're a retard, on the dim hopes that you would understand why you are a retard.
>It doesn't seem to have worked.
Fucking retard.

>>18104967
please make a point and stop complaining about words you dont like.

>>18104978
>It's not that I can't stand it
It got you triggered so hard, that you dismissed a perfectly fine argument.
You are the cancer

>>18104966
>defending it as if their truth is an integral aspect of their personally perceived identity.
This.

>>18104978
>Do better
>on 4chan
Do you know where you are? Take your superior language bullshit somewhere else.

>>18101310

Yeah, I wish NASA would just come out and admit the moon is a hollow sphere that houses advanced technology. Those fucking liars, how can anybody trust them?

>>18104986
It's weird man. I would have thought this place would be a magnet to the curious who believe there is something more than is immediately told. I wouldn't have thought upon hearing something different that they might not hold to be true that they'd start sperging out and throwing insults about like teenage autists and generally derailing meaningful conversation and speculation.

As I said, really oodles one's noodles...

>>18105015

P.s.

Thanks for the thread anyway OP, I found it fascinating

>>18105015
People who believe in conspiracy theories aren't curious.

>>18104979

That was another anon, but I suppose I can't prove that so whatever.

Ay senpai, why can't deez NASA fuckbois just tell us truth already?

File: IMG_2527.jpg (149KB, 1024x1024px)

149KB, 1024x1024px

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1478.html
>"Small amounts of water were detected on the surface of the moon at various locations"
shouldnt be there without the atmosphere

>other planets of earths size have moons with 10-30km diameter. ours with 3476km is way too big to be catched by our gravitation and stay in orbit. and if you believe ancients tales the moon couldnt become our moon through a huge impact, since those tales tell about times before the moon was there. and if it happened with an impact i dont think there would be someone left to tell about it

File: 1470445484764.jpg (47KB, 640x629px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x629px

>>18105023

Fuck off

>>18105065
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-12-3.html
>After being hit by a satalite the moon vibrated for an hour
is it hollow?
>rusty rocks found on moon despite there not being any free hydrogen or oxygen to create rust in the first place.

Also i had to make it 2 parts because it says it thinks this is spam. also my moonthread a week ago or so dissapeared into the nothing as well.

>>18105065
The moon has a very faint trace atmosphere. So trace amounts of water being there isn't a huge deal.

>If you believe ancient

Ancient humans go back thousands of years ago. The moon is billions of years old. Even if the ancients did have tales about the moon, they wouldn't matter because ancient people just made shit up without evidence. Mythology, for example.

>>18105076
>Is it hollow

No. It's rigid. This was already explained in the thread

>rusty rocks found on the moon despite not being any free hydrogen or oxygen in the first place.

Not exactly remarkable since the whole reason Mars is red is because of rust. Also, nobody ever said there was free oxygen on the moon at any point. And hydrogen has nothing to do with iron oxide.

>>18105065
>shouldnt be there without the atmosphere
why not? There are moons, that literally have more water than the fucking earth and yet no real atmosphere.

>>18105094
arent those moons frozen, at least on the surface, making the ice keeping the water under the surface? on the moon it apparently was in the "air", like one source said that the instruments picked up some water like it was blown over the instruments by a gust of wind. and that shouldnt be possible without a atmosphere

>>18105091
but mars allegedly had an atmosphere, or still has a pretty thin one which allows oxidation. the moon doesnt,or if i believe a previous of your post a pretty really thin one (i didnt hear of that yet), and to get rust you need free oxygen (and if my chemist class doesnt fail me) and hydrogen or water at least, which shouldnt be on the moon
also when i said rust i didnt mean specifically iron oxid, but all the others metall oxids there are (i know rust is the term for ironoxid, but yeah^^)

>>18105080
i wouldnt be too quick to just say "they made up everything" just because it seems unexplainable for us now. i mean multiple civilisations talk about paleskinned, blond haired and blue eyed people, giving them new technology and help creating a civilization. many of them have pretty similar stories about the creation of the world and so on as well, if they just make it up why is it always the same?

the moon being billions of years old doesnt mean a thing. it could drift around in space for a few billions and only could get brought into orbit a few thousand years ago

>>18105135
>Mars has an atmosphere which allows oxidation

Almost entirely CO2, trace amount of oxygen.

>and to get rust you need free oxygen

No, you don't. You just need oxygen. There's shit tons of oxygen on the moon, just locked up as mineral oxides. The moon is about 43% oxygen, for fuck's sake. That doesn't mean there was ever a real atmosphere.

>Multiople civilizations talke about paleskinned blued people giving them technology and help creating a civilization

Horseshit. That's Ancient Aliens bullshit.

>it could have been only brought into orbit a few thousand years ago

More bullshit.

so i just started reading this comic called

Edge of extinction

pretty much all this thread in it check it out.

i never said anything about aliens. could be another old civilization we dont know of that has fallen apart, and the last people spread across the earth and shared there knowledge. with technology i dont mean electronics and stuff, but architecture, agreaculture and that stuff.

and why is it bullshit to assume the moon came into the orbit just "recently". im happy to if you can provide evidence for that. and yes i know, i dont provide any evidence either, but i also didnt say your theory is bullshit, just threw another one in there.

>>18105170
There are traces of lunar tides in sedimentary rocks going back over 3 billion years ago. The moon separated from the earth 4 billion years ago, and you can tell because of the similar chemistries.

>>18101582
Its cheese

>>18101815
No. Everyone already knows 9 11 was an inside job. The conspiracy would be that fucking sand niggers actually brought it down. Hurrrrr

There are a few genuine dissenters, those notwithstanding damn there are a lot of shills on this thread.

Take that plus The Disappearance of the filmmaker and that's all the proof I need

>>18102064
Zoz

We cant even discuss the fucking moon without shills, lies, name calling and insults. I wonder why there are no good threads on /x/ any more.......

>>18105208
you think /x/ is bad? try /pol/ only racists propaganda, hillary propaganda and trump propaganda. that combined with newfags just coming around calling us racists bigots and the legit threads that are just shit, /x/ is a haven

>>18105208
Can we have a discussion about the moon without retards claiming the moon landings were faked or it's hollow or a hologram that proves flat earth?

Because we can't really have a serious conversation about the moon when those retards are involved.

>>18105219
so you want to just talk about the standard official theories? why talking then? just read it up on the internet.
Its good to throw in as many weird things as possible. that way you atleast think about the possibility and reason why it could be or cant be, this insight you can again project on other theories and validate or ivalidate it as well. throwing in weird theories is good. bad is when those person wont discuss, accepts other oppinions, wont even consider himself being the wrong one, because that is what hinders discussion. but thats equally on both sides

>>18105208
4chan was compromised after moot left. Despite what the narrative here would lead you to believe it was the death of the site, not the glorious rebirth.

The 5% of posters here that know things(myself included) mostly lurk until we spot one another, and rarely if ever speak up for the reasons you mentioned.

>>18105219
If you say they are "retards" provide evidence refuting their claims. Oh right you won't because day one you're taught to never discuss the facts.

>>18105237
I'll provide evidence when I'm the one making the claims. If the burden is on them, I'm not going to do their work for them. A non-retard knows how burden of proof works. Do you?

>>18105231
You're perfectly welcome to discuss alternative theories. Provided, you know, you actually have reason and evidence to support alternative theories.

>>18105250
>I'll provide evidence when I'm the one making the claims.

>claims people only talk bullshit
>not providing any evidence

File: 9dfK0pK.jpg (4MB, 4095x2768px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4095x2768px

>>18105260

>>18105260
am i blind or are that just rocks and there is nothing special about the pic?

File: quote-the-moon-is-essentially-gray-no-color-looks-like-plaster-of-paris-soft-of-gray-sand-jim-lovell-54-86-52.jpg (53KB, 850x400px)

53KB, 850x400px

>>18105260
>>18105263
Huh...

>>18105267
ah ok, now i get the bigger picture of your... pictures...

so you think the moonlanding was fake? like i heared an interesting theory that the landing was real, but the footage was faked because they didnt want to show us what there really is. sadly no proof except for some videos that show up on youtube which seems to be from the moonlading fake set and pictures of the same which could just be fakes themselves

>>18105184
Thats a Load of malarkey. It has heavey metals on and trace amounts of radioactive isotopes on the surface. Unless it coincidentally come from a chunck of earth that had a combination of metals and isotopes that isn't common.
I'm pretty sure the current most accepted view amongst the scientific community is that it was a brother planet to earth, but we developed faster and at some point collided with this brother planet and it became entrapped in our gravitational field since we were further developed and therefore more dense.
I still don't believe that myself, I do believe it is artificial, but lack any undisputable evidence ethier way, and lack the funding and I dare say the right to go a preform research on it myself so I can only speculate

>>18105285
Well the photos corraborate what Jim Lovell is saying. That shit's gray. Also, Lovell never landed on the moon, and only commented on what he saw from the command module.

File: 8d9be2ca-adc5-4e75-a22f-871fb8ef937c.jpg (31KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x426px

>>18105285
No. I'm saying that practically everything they say is scripted to further NASA's narrative. I believe we went to the moon, but I think they have to keep their pride. They can't ever go back on their script, and part of the script was that the moon was white/grey, when we know from their very own pictures (and others like China, which is what was posted) that the moon's natural close up color is not white/grey, but more dark brown/grey. For reference, this is what plater of Paris looks like.

>>18105301
for me it looks more like brownish

>>18105315
i feel that is the case with a lot of science. they have a theory, everyone buys it and its the official theory that everyone learns. then someone sees some issue with it, can invalidate the theory, but never will because the old theory is dogmatized that everything going against it is herecy and will destroy your reputation and you will never find a good work. only acceptable thing is to alter, to add something to the theory to not make it false, just not entirely right

>>18102037
> share ellaborated response that really adds to the conversation
> Invite to more insightful debate
No one replies you

Tell us inspiring, maybe weird, but real facts anon

>>18105250

You clearly don't understand how refutation works or debate. Thank you for discrediting yourself

>>18101310
>You can't say it's camera artifacts
>This isn't someone outlining vague shapes and claiming "LOOK, BASES ON THE MOON"
Actually I think that's exactly what it is.

>>18105445
the base on the moon maybe, but the tower, "the shard" like its called really exists

>>18105460
Then why is it in no other photographs?

>>18105467
there are multiple pictures of it. even from different angles. only thing is i dont think it is 22 miles high, i somewhere read about 11 miles or something like that

>>18105350
>it looks brownish

Splitting hairs. That's gray as fuck. You can argue there's a brownish tint to it, but there's nothing wrong with the way Lovell described it either. Also Apollo 17 found an outcropping of orangish soil, that doesn't invalidate the Moon being by and large gray.

>I feel that is the case with a lot of how science works, they have a theory

The reason it got to be a theory in the first place is because of overwhelming evidence to establish it. You CAN invalidate the theory, but you need to provide evidence and show why the old theory is wrong.

Do that, and you can replace the old theory with the new. And the reason nobody takes moon hoaxers seriously isn't because of "dogma," it's because they've got no evidence.

>>18105474
OP posted one. Where are the others?

>>18101464
I think you're trying to insinuate that OP is Moon Moon, but if you really think that then you've never seen a thread in which Moon Moon posted.

I have.

And let me tell you, every other poster I have ever seen on /x/ (OP included) or anywhere else combined still don't reach the level of sheer combined stupidity and mental instability displayed by Moon Moon.

They were convinced that not only everyone who disagreed with them, but everyone who so much as asked for more information (instead of taking their words at face value) was a shill out to discredit them.

Now admittedly that's fairly standard for /x/, but that's because you haven't heard the next part. They stated outright, on multiple occasions, that they believed that they themselves were a tulpa created by the collective population of 4chan as 'an outlet for their shill tactics'. I swear I'm not making that up, they actually made that claim.

They included with every post (and I mean EVERY post) a photo of the surface of the moon, the surface of Mars, the surface of Mercury, or crop circles, dependent on the subject of their current tangent. These pictures did not show anything, and often (even when pressed) they would not even CLAIM the pictures showed anything - although it was clear they believed that they did. Once they got started, they would continue posting pictures - only rarely without accompanying text - until the thread hit its image limit.

Speaking of accompanying text, it was largely a patchwork of buzzwords like 'gaslighting' and 'poisoning the well' which were periodically put together in a coherent manner but rarely - if ever - said anything they had never said before.

Is that it? I'm sure there's more, I just can't remember it. They've been gone for a while. I really wish I'd screencapped a sample of one of their tirades - it was real /x/ gold.

>>18101530
>>18101511
Yes. Yes to both.

>>18105475
but sometimes a theory only seems legit because of lack of knowledge. "we donnt fall of the earth, so it obviously was flat. but there is this guy that came along claiming silly things like having evidence that the earth is round, and the earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around. what a lunatic. of course we burned him". and its essentially the same today. just because you have proof doesnt mean others will understand the proof. even less when it would destroy the whole picture they have about the world and the universe and themselves. than its easier to just ignore the new facts and brandmark the other guy as crazy instead of changing your own believes since if that, what you believed your whole live, is a lie, what else is? what is real? what is not? am i real? who am i really?

File: NCFAIL GIF.gif (2MB, 300x200px)

2MB, 300x200px

>>18101918
>Who brought up aliens, again?
>Ctrl+f
>1 of 6: >>18101918

>>18105519
how do you know they werent a tulpa created by 4chan? do you deny tulpas the right to exist? all entities are precious, and just because you dont have to live with being a tulpa doesnt mean anyone else has to. god dammit i thought this was an openminded board, not a closeminded board of ignorance

>>18102008
>the one intelligent post is ignored completely
Never change, /x/.

>>18103062
>>18102350
I forget which one of you is the conspiritard and which is the skeptic. That's what you've devolved into.

>>18104037
Let's play the age old game of 'shitposter or retard'!

>>18104447
Cheddar? CHEDDAR!?

Goddammit anon, this is the problem with America today. Anyone with half a brain knows that moon cheese is closest to parmesan.

>>18105575
is there an option for both?

but honestly, why is it that with every anomaly there is seen the nasa doesnt go through the effort to make a closer, better picture of it. its like they dont want to find something there, or else they would look at least into some of the stuff people claim to have seen and make a better photo, to either validate or ivalidate claims of something being there. but for me its just looks like they are making some photos to look like they are actually investigating. wether its mars or moon doesnt matter

>>18105065
>since those tales tell about times before the moon was there.
'Ancient human tales' also tell all about this famous hunter and his brother who escaped a cloud of ravenous bats by hiding inside a blowgun.

>>18105135
>the moon doesnt,or if i believe a previous of your post a pretty really thin one (i didnt hear of that yet)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

>>18105157
That sounds familiar but I don't know what it is.

>>18105298
>I'm pretty sure the current most accepted view amongst the scientific community is that it was a brother planet to earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
>As of 2001 the giant-impact hypothesis is the favoured scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.

>>18105587
But thats not really how it is happening. They actually want to find anomalies and when they find something that sticks out, they invetigate further. They are however better at identifieng artefacts and measurment errors than the general public.

File: B& Ackslide.gif (3MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x225px

>>18105584
>>18104830
>>18104816
>>18104625
>>18104582
>>18104447
>>18104396

>>18104808
>I've always felt
Yeah, but do you have any evidence? Feelings don't really mean anything in a rational inquiry.

>>18102015
Damn son where have you been hiding

>>18104808
>I dunno. I've always felt as though things are kept from us because society in a whole simply couldn't handle knowing some things.

“All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was."
"No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

>>18104966
thank you. some people are so afraid of being wrong about something they are absolutely sure of, because if that isnt real? what else isnt? suddenly they cant believe anything anymore and even unsure of their own self.

i so far go pretty well with the opposite way, i at least consider everything is possible, and give everything a chance to pursuate me with good arguments and facts. when some information invalidates a previous believe i dont see it as a destruction of my worldimage, but an addition, and upgrade, like every new information is. and im happy about every upgrade i get

File: 1472869541838.jpg (93KB, 621x672px)

93KB, 621x672px

>>18101812
That's not a hypothesis at all.
If, Then, Because.
If OP sucks cock, then he will be called a faggot, because sucking cock is for faggots.

>>18105661
Hi OP. Derailing thread? More like changing subject to something better. Bunch of spergs running amok in here

>>18105736
Let me update your worldview then. People will take you more seriously if you use proper punctuation and capitalization on the internet. You made a completely rational statement, but because of your style of typing, I basically throw anything you might say away because I assume you're a 12 year old.

I'm truly not trying to make fun of you, but consider where you are. You're communicating online with text. Your style of typing is equivalent to a person with a lisp or who can't annunciate R; sire you may make a good point, but if you sound like Elmer Fud you're going to get laughed at and dismissed by 99% of listeners.

>>18105912
i appreciate input, but honestly it is late (5 am, going to sleep after this) and english isn't my native english so it takes some focus to write properly and i dont have any more. so sorry about that

>>18105946
Do they not capitalize words in your language?

>>18105738
I meant it in the sense of stoic logic. a > b

a was the hypothesis, and b is whatever logic you care to derive given the condition, a.

Some reading for you.

https://books.google.com/books?id=piQZzEXWs4EC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false

>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Logical Philosophies,

>>18101310
The moon is a piece of the Earth.

>>18101526
No actually. Most reputable scientists believe the moon came about after an asteroid knocked a chunk out of the young earth billions of years ago. That chunk remained in orbit and eventually formed the moon.

File: 1429567616884.jpg (50KB, 465x465px)

50KB, 465x465px

>>18104439

File: 1467298753143.jpg (72KB, 735x541px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 735x541px

>>18105912
>>18106158

The spire structure is unofficially officially called the tower of babel.
NASA and the DOD have done experiments on it which are still classified, they will not release any details on it with FOIA requests.
Relevant testing is the Chapel Bell Experiment.

In one STS mission a couple astronauts were recording talking to one another while they were out of contact with Houston. The two reference hearing music, mention a third party "they" and say that their taste is very beautiful.
Its alleged that the astronauts are referring to the Tower of Babel, but theres nothing concrete, its only a hunch.

A friend of mine in high school was pretty obsessed with it, filed tons of FOIA requests relating to everything he could find a connection to. Never got anything from any of them.
Surprised no one here knows about this any more.

Thinking about Ingo Swann's book about remote viewing "Penetration" still rustles my jimmies. That book is so fucked up that it really makes me think about the old "truth is stranger than fiction" thing.

>>18105263

Man something about that pic is really comfy. I'd like to ride my fatbike there. :3

>>18105216

Pol and to a lesser extent, /x/, seem to be infested with botposters. Their output is pretty weird sometimes but it's also consistent. There seems to be a multi-front psyops in /pol/ (cuckposting for example), and /x/ is just your standard shutdowns and slideb8.

>>18106793
Literally nothing in this schizo filled roleplaying shit board needs to be slid. /pol/ is actually a semi relevant force in politics for being one of the primary places where right leaning individuals congregate. Scouring wikileaks releases, digging through Clinton financial records, exposing CTR shills, generating propaganda that spreads around the web, being a driving force behind GG, helping to prop individuals like Milo to current fame. /pol/ creates results. Because of that /pol/ is high profile, high value. Trying to disrupt the discourse there is something that people behind both Bernie and Hillary campaigns have done.

This board quite literally is filled to the brim with the barely functioning mentally ill. Its 50% tumblrinas in desperate need of anti psychotic drugs. Trying to muddy the waters here to prevent any truthful discussion would be like pouring sewage into a septic tank.

>>18106800
>/pol/ is actually a semi relevant force in politics

>>18106800
Nice dubs.

>>18106812
Hillary Clinton targeting the "alt right" is talking about /pol/ specifically.
It sure as fuck isn't the ineffectual faggots on reddit. Its not a tiny minority of degenerates making a dozen posts a day on cripple chan. Its not a forum like stormfront, or any place else. Its /po/ right here on 4chan. Its /pol/ in force on twitter with all of our dupe accounts. Its /pol/ and no one else.

File: 1470528924974.png (26KB, 148x208px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 148x208px

>>18102064
I'll agree with you for now but I will always hold my doubts.

Remember anon no matter what information you find always doubt it deep in your heart. We live in an age where the only thing free is air, death, and lies.

>>18106819

I feel bad for you. Why don't you turn off your computer and go outside?

>>18106837
>I don't have an argument
>I'll just shitpost

Go back to tumblr.

>>18106841

You're literally turning into a meme.

>>18102440
Pic related?
Anime ayylmao eyes always get me

File: anime_dance_st.gif (1009KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 500x281px

>>18106849
Is humanity even ready for the concept of designer genes? Because once you raise the bar, there's no goin' back.

>>18106779
Nice reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious >>18105912
was offering real advice and agreed with >>18105736

And who wouldn't? It's a pretty tame worldview. He just made a lot of grammar mistakes. He admitted he was tires and English wasn't his first language, so it's not like it's even worth debating.

You know what is though?

>why
>say
>wink
>?

File: moonset-3.jpg (260KB, 1600x1065px)

260KB, 1600x1065px

>>18102064
>yet Conspiratards
>NASA was lying and the earth is flat.

Psy-op coming along nicely.

>>18106915
>real advice

>>18101399
>not the only large anomaly resembling architecture on the moon, even mainstream tv shows talk about them.

>Being this bad at being a shill.

Seriously, are you a Polish disinfo shill, or what?

>>18101474
Agree with you, got shilled pretty hard too, sure sign of true statements lol.

>>18101798
Hi shill.

File: 1469551305351.jpg (41KB, 620x827px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 620x827px

>>18106943
>>18106951
>>18106957

>>18106868
My body is ready

>>18101423
>Let's discuss why Nasa shot another rocket at the moon to discover water vapor when they already discovered water vapor back in the 70s.
What, are you saying you wouldn't falcon punch the moon if someone found the resources and "scientific experimental reasons" to do so? Shit, I'd falcon punch the Antarctic just to "disprove Hollow Earth & IT'S ALL A GREAT WALL!"

Penguins are smelly pieces of shit and deserve to be kinetically bombarded.

>>18106957
>If I call him a shill, that instantly invalidates everything he's said and may say in the future. Checkmate, asshole!

>>18105718
You, sir, have impeccable taste.

>>18106943
>Mainstream TV shows talk about large architecture on the moon

Well then it should be easy for you to post some photos, yeah?