Did we ever land on the moon?

>>18622788
something landed thats for sure

what?

>>18622788
of course they landed and then came back and no one ever repeated it even with modern technology

>>18622827
probably because it was during the cold war? and now requiere more money, money that can be use to other things

>>18622788
>evidence vs skeptics

hmmm

>>18622788
are we even alive? the evidence points to yes, but skeptics remain unconviced.

>>18622827
>no one ever repeated it even with modern technology
what if they did, secretly

>>18622832
But this is /x/, so evidence is like the points in Whose Line is it Anyways

>>18622836
Doubt it back then they did it with their own 2 hands now its all computers

Where is the love in that?

Power of love and friendship > Computers

>>18622788
The MOON is not made of CHEESE.. what evidence are you on about?

>>18622788
In those times there were a lot of spy among usa and `the soviet union , if we never landed on the moon wed know because the other faction woulda said it ... so fuck off with that shit

>>18622841
What about all the 300k starting scientist who worked on it?

>I believe in science
>I don't believe the top scientists

>>18622827
not even the same people made it back

>>18622847
And no one will try again because of so many failures that crashed and burned. Probably if they tried again the rocket would ignite and become a ball of fire consuming everything like that one launch made by the private sector

>>18622852
all because people did what they didn't want, going to the moon instead of mars or something like they already gotten once with some probes and shit

>>18622845
I bet they learned all sort of stuff that would have revolutionized many fields had they not kept it for themselves

Japan can keep a robot in thier fucked uo nuke reactor for 2 hours yet decades ago we could drive through that shit with people

OP Here

If any of you think America didn't land on the moon, it's purely because of ignorance on different subjects

'They couldnt survive the radiation' - wrong
'We had the technology to fake it' - wrong
'The flag was waving' - wrong
'It was filmed inside a movie studio' - kill yourself

>>18622867
not saying we didnt go. but "'We had the technology to fake it' - wrong" - hows that accurate in any way? have you looked at pictures and looked into front screen projection?

>>18622827
there have been 6 manned moon landings with 7 people in total to walk the moon, you uneducated neckbeard.

>>18622867
Prove it

>>18622879
>>18622886

The main argument is 'it was filmed on Earth and slowed down' some say it was filmed in a movie studio in hollywood, others that it was filmed in area 51 - but this was impossible for the time. Film could not be slowed down for longer than 30 seconds using a disk recorder, meaning NASA either had some super secret shit nobody else had in which they could record for 47 minutes, slow it down to reach just over 2 hours, the initial length of the broadcast or they did it on film which was not impossible but so incredibly implausible it would have just been easier going to the moon.

>>18622900

You know nothing of what you're talking about. Good try though.

>>18622900
They didnt do it on film. What are you talking about? It was a tv broadcast

>>18622916
No what he is saying is actually completely correct, given the time. You're just stupid

>>18622788
You faggots can talk about wether the footage is fake or not for days. fair enough. But the landing certainly happened. It is literally denying reality if you say otherwise

>>18622927
Yes well how did they slow down a Live Television broadcast then?

>>18622934
Thank you

>>18622900
It's much easier to make a high speed camera than one that works on the moon, just FYI

>>18622916
>You know nothing of what you're talking about


>Film could not be slowed down for longer than 30 seconds using a disk recorder, meaning NASA either had some super secret shit nobody else had in which they could record for 47 minutes, slow it down to reach just over 2 hours, the initial length of the broadcast or they did it on film which was not impossible but so incredibly implausible

sounds like he knows whats up

>>18622941
>Yes well how did they slow down a Live Television broadcast then?
It was still prerecorded just not on film. They didnt use film for tv. Film is for the cinema.

>>18622945
this is probably the dumbest thing I have read on /x

>>18622950
>It was still prerecorded just not on film

Then what did they use my dear friend

Ahh yes forgot to mention it would have been not only impossible but easiest during Apollo 11 as it was presented at 10 fps, as all the further missions were 30 fps so lets just start there. I'm trying to make it easy on you

>>18622960
Cameras?!

>>18622934
You're a classic example of someone who is very gullible.

>>18622947
He doesn't have any idea because the first landing was certainly staged and filmed. He's implying it wasn't which means he hasn't researched and is just talking out of his ass.

>>18622969
You do know there wasn't such a thing as an SD Card right... ?

>>18622973
What do you mean?

>>18622972
>have any idea because the first landing was certainly staged and filmed. He's implying it wasn't which means he hasn't researched and is just talking out of his ass.

you haven't given me any reasoning to why you believe it was fake, Please do. Not talking motives but evidence

>>18622975
You said cameras but all cameras at the time the largest a camera 'drive' could hold is 30 seconds of replayable footage, or pretty much unlimited on film but you would have to keep switching obviously, the only reason the moon landing was viewed live is because the images were being sent to earth in realtime, not stored, because it would have been impossible for anything let alone footage from the fucking moon.

>>18622972
>first landing was certainly staged and filmed
So they went to the moon and staged the landing? How did they get the russians to shut up? Because they were definitely tracking the spacecraft and would have said sometihng if they were only faking it.

>>18622976
Two words.

Jay Weidner. If you don't know who I'm talking about then you know nothing of the moon hoax.

>>18622985
I'm pretty sure NASA was a bit more advanced than that.

>>18622990
Didn't realize you were a Kubrick cuck lmao, this is supposed to be serious, please leave

>>18622993
I could gladfully link you a video from a filmmaker that you can fact check addressing this topic- if you would like considering he is more knowledged in this subject than either of us

>>18622995
>guy makes a better argument than me
>better call him a cuck

Every time

>>18623004
desu with you dude, you're just looking like a fucking moron, he is presenting facts, you're not

File: alien-breast-7-of-9.jpg (39KB, 458x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 458x600px

>>18622995
Not him but Jay Weidner makes a more convincing testimony than you do and he's been doing film all his life, you're just a random faggot on 4chan so explain why we should listen to you?

>>18623004
Yes because giving me one mans name is 'a better argument'

>>18623011
then please present his argument, You're just a random as well but the difference between us is I am obviously educated on this subject, and you're not

>>18623018
>Jay Weidner
the argument is literally

>NASA Came to me to record it before they went to Stanley.

Its fucking retarded and couldn't convince anyone that doesn't have down syndrome

have you guys seen operation avalanche? pretty cool movie, its about the CIA faking the moon landing. its not super realistic

>>18623052
no way they faked it thats just propaganda to make it seem they can fake a world event

>>18623105
its just a indie filmmaker tryna make a name for himself

>>18622858
Because ideas and theories can be horded like money. Dumbass.

>>18623001
And yet hes prob just about as retarded as you

>>18622985
Lol so they had technology to live stream video as well as audio from the MOON aaalll the way to planet Earth for several hours, even have our president talk to the astronaut "live"

Yet the possibility that the video was just shot from Earth IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

>>18623105
what? its a movie

>>18623233
yup. maybe they went, if they did they would surely have the tapes made as a backup of something were to happen, camera getting destroyed whatever

>>18622788
just link a pic on the lunar landing site which isnt cgi and it would end all this. you can shoot a license plate from satellites to earth right? why not a lunar lander on the moon

sain person says i dont care i will probably never be there sain person will look for the true answers in life and dont get stuck on a point that has no value

>>18623233
>Yet the possibility that the video was just shot from Earth IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

you have no idea how film works kid

>>18622788
>skeptics

Skeptics are people reluctant to believe an extraordinary claim without looking at evidence first.

Moon hoaxers believe an absurd claim that hasn't got any evidence whatsoever.

File: 584641main_apollo17-left-670.jpg (172KB, 670x322px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 670x322px

>>18623253
>a pic on the lunar landing site which isnt cgi and it would end all this. you can shoot a license plate from satellites to earth right? why not a lunar lander on the moon

Never heard of capturing a plate from a satellite, I don't think thats possible as of yet

>>18623332
>Moon hoaxers believe an absurd claim that hasn't got any evidence whatsoever.
but da flag it wave dude

>>18622827
Why would they?

>>18623340
>the flag wave

No it don't

>>18622972
>I'm right because I'm right
>I don't need to present aby evidence

Arrogant and stupid. The perfect mix for a conspiracy theorist

This video will explain everything OP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He2kbOadOi8

Hyperborea was on the moon as were the Riphean mounains, however the Riphean mountains also existed on Earth. This is because the moon was connected to the Earth far later than is understood by science. When the moon broke away the Hyperboreans left with it and it became impossible to cross the Riphean mountains as the Romans and the ancient Greeks once did. This calamity caused the extinction of the Hyperboreans, the ruins of their ancient civilisation presently reside on the dark side of the moon, lifeless.

Alex told me that they landed but they could't get the real footage back because of radiation belt.So there was a second mission where they faked the footage with good camera work.

here's a thought; the space program and the apollo missions will have been some of the most expensive endeavours ever to take place in the public eye, would the interested parties/ financiers really want to risk spending all that money and going all that way in the name of mighty USA at a time of super posturing with the USSR, only for the camera to have a crack in the lens? Or the camera out of focus? If the lander had crashed, would they have told us? Or would they have some footage ready to show us?

I think the moon landing was fake and that they did actually go. The real footage had to be cut with prepared material to hide of all the stuff they didn't want us to see.

What do you reckon anon?

>>18622788

no the moon landings were staged by the CIA, Disney and NASA. A truck load of proof are available online, people denying it online are paid trolls.

>>18622788
there are two kinds of people in the world:

those who own really decent telescopes and those who believe the moon landing was faked.

>>18622841
Go get some telescope time, you can see the landing sites.

>>18624106
No this is a lie.

>>18624069

You think you can see the moon landing with a telescope? What kind of autistic fuck are you? The most powerful telescopes no telescope on earth can see the moon landing site.

>>18624159
>The most powerful telescopes no telescope on earth can see the moon landing site.
No, there is no landing sites.

>>18622827
>right, we've been to the moon 6 times now...
>We've brought back a fuckton of rocks, there's fuck all else there, let's go back!
>what do you mean, "nobody cares about the moon anymore"?
>what do you mean it's a waste of precious time and resources?

>>18623812
None of that makes any kind of sense.

>>18624889

Uhm, the mission happened, the radiation belt however destroys any of the images they could have possibly filmed even with cutting edge tech, so they made a fake film to show the plebs.

The fuck do they care if we see the real thing or not?

>>18622883
Where do you get 7 from?
There were 7 missions launched for manned landings. Apollo 13 didn't make it, and we were thankful the astronauts returned alive. So six landings.
Each lander carried two of the three astronauts. The third remained in the command module in orbit.
No astronaut made two landings.

There were 12 astronauts that walked on the Moon.

>>18624917
>film

It wasn't film. It was video, which was transmitted live.

Do you understand the difference between video and film? They're two different things

Also, the van allen belts don't destroy film either.

>>18624023
>, only for the camera to have a crack in the lens? Or the camera out of focus? If the lander had crashed, would they have told us? Or would they have some footage ready to show us?
>I think the moon landing was fake and that they did actually go. The real footage had to be cut with prepared material to hide of all the stuff they didn't want us to see.
>What do you reckon anon?

Thats okay reasoning but reasoning has to be backed up by some evidence

>>18624069
>>18624106
>>18624117
>>18624159
no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. With that being said I don't think the moon landings were fake, just putting facts into the equation

>>18625481
You're arguing against fucking retards here, don't try too hard

File: moonpics.jpg (321KB, 720x723px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 720x723px

We did land on the moon but some parts of the footage is fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUYX2sjzdFY

File: earth-wallpaper-9.jpg (555KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1920x1200px

The only thing theorists bring up is that there was reasoning behind faking the moon landings and I don't disagree- with that being said it was much, much easier to actually land on the moon than to have faked it. Every point brought up by theorists is brought up from looking at a highlight reel from the mission, such as looking at 10 seconds of the flag moving when it was being planted when in actuality it stood perfectly still for over 40 minutes.

Here is the filmmaker I was referring to - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

At the end of the day, if you believe the moon landings were faked, you're either ignorantly misinformed or purposely trying to deceive others. Neither of which I understand.

>>18622900

Did you see this on some Moon Landing Hoax Debunked documentary? It's beyond retarded and I'll tell you why:

We have had the technology to do this ever since we've had the technology to film motion. Did you know that the first film cameras were hand cranked so that the operator actually had to be very careful about maintaining a constant speed? That is because the speed at which film is shot is inversely relative to the speed at which it will be played back. Turn the crank faster and you have more frames per second. Play a higher fps reel at the normal playback speed and you have slow motion. This is really basic stuff here guys. All you'd need to film the 2 hours of moon landing footage in slow motion would be a slight adjustment to the motor and shutter speed of the camera. As you said yourself, you wouldn't even need to record for 2 hours, thus further reducing your costs and efforts.

Shaking my damn head at this shit.

>>18625851
Right, but that's film. We're talking about video, which operates completely differently.

>>18622916
Yes he does. Increasing the speed of a film camera (overcranking) to achieve a slow motion effect is obviously going to expose the entire roll faster than usual. Use some logic.

>>18625851
>>18625861
Exactly, for film it would take nearly 5000 feet, given it being shot at 30fps and played back at 10. 5000 Feet/1000 feet = 5. You would need 5 carts of footage and then you would have to splice those together perfectly so nobody could tell it wasn't one constant tape, while at the same time making sure there isn't any dust or other issue that is common with film. And then do that for 5 more landings...

>>18622972
You must be a really popular guy.

>>18625876
The moon walks were transmitted, live, on video. You can't do slow motion video like that with 1969 technology. This is explained in depth in the video in question.

>>18625880
I know just explaining how difficult it would be to even attempt it

>>18623018
>obviously educated on this subject
Anybody who thinks we didn't land on the moon has no right to make assumpouns about education.

>>18625887
You're explaining how it would be different of film.

Video is not a series of photographs arranged on a strip of film. It is fundamentally different.

>>18625892
>Anybody who thinks we didn't land on the moon has no right to make assumpouns about education.

Anybody who can't spell assumptions has no right to make assumptions. The guy you quoted doesn't believe we faked the moon landing, read up.

>>18623253
Because the distance between the earth and the moon is a lot fucking further than a satellite down to a licence plate.

>>18625897
Well that is exactly what it was back in the 60's

>>18623651
I'd play that video game.

>>18624040
Holy fuck you /x/ people STILL believe in shills and paid trolls? Guess what. Nobody in power gives a shit about disproving tinfoil theories.

>>18625904
No, it wasn't. Film and video are two different formats. Film is little squares of photographs all arranged on a strip. You run the strip past a light source, the image is projected on a screen and it appears to move.

Video is something else.

For starters, you can transmit video through space via radio waves. So you can have live transmissions.

yes, we did. and yes, Kubrick filmed a fake landing just in case something wasn't quite right up there.

they didn't allow him in NASA just to research a movie at the height of the Cold War, they wouldn't even let him get a look at a b-52 bomber when he was making Dr Strange Love.

>>18625910

Shills are a confirmed thing you retarded fuck.

No people ever walked on moon. It's illegal for anything to even fly over the landing sites. We did land shit there, but people didn't walk around on it

>>18626304
Well no not freely. What do you mean its illegal to fly over it/

>>18626304
Are you the same fucking idiot that tried to claim that its illegal to go to Antarctica? Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

>>18626350
He means he skipped school for the entirty of every grade and was dropped on his head repeatedly as a baby.

File: laughing-meme.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>18626361
>He means he skipped school for the entirty of every grade and was dropped on his head repeatedly as a baby.
>entirty
>was dropped on his head repeatedly as a baby

>>18622788
yes but certainly it wasn't live on TV.

>>18626369
I'm drunk. What's OP's excuse?

>>18625703
My point still stands

>>18626400
My excuse for what

>>18623337
ily anon. I also love how your indisputable evidence receives fucking silence.

>>18626422
Sorry OP, didn't actually mean you. Meant the idiot saying its 'illegal to fly over the moon'.

>>18625696
that's retarded

>>18626428
oh ahaha yeah we need to build a wall around it

>>18625696
>>18626432
Someone obviously doesn't know how shadows work

>INB4 BUT LOOK DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS

yes that has to do with the leveling, if there were multiple light sources, there would me multiple shadows. Basic stuff here guys.

>>18622900
>can go into space
>can't invent camera

Like how in Star Trek they still use giant floppy disks?

>>18622788
If the Moon was real, then has it not been eaten by space rats? Checkmate NASA

>>18626450
Believe it or not, thats the technology we had back then. Movie Magic wasn't a thing yet. Americans had been working on rockets since 1920, it was a priority, camera's weren't.

>>18622788
yes but the moon is flat

>>18626464
complete autist

>>18626450
>space

Did we ever land on the moon. Yes.

Did we land on the moon when we said we did. No.

Simple answers.

>>18626602
>Did we land on the moon when we said we did. No.
>Simple answers.

explain how you got this please

>>18626607

There is plenty of evidence that supports that we faked the first moon landing. I will not go through and post links to everything you should watch, examine, and read. If you want that make a new thread and ask for it, look through this one, or go to that fine website "google" and begin to research.

We had plenty of reasons to fake it until we got it which is the most likely scenario. As to all the reasons why? A lot more research there as well. Once you start down the rabbit hole of why is this covered up and why is that covered up its hard to dig back out.

Trust me, its well worth the effort to look into. The shit you will find out will get even more confusing and even more worrying. Rats in a maze right now.

>>18622788
Yes

we can't go past the first 100km. period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNmj-JmrR8

>INB4: yoyo shit and other fancy gadgets
No, ask the staff behind the experiment or better watch the video and use your brain (no deceleration, no reverse spinning, no yoyo to be seen at any point, the noise when the rocket hits etc...)
Earth is flat.

>>18626629
See thats the one issue I have though, none of the points brought up are even remotely accurate, and all are debunked by third party independent researchers, some of whom even oust the government for many other things so no, until you give me one piece of evidence you're just trolling as far as im concerned

>>18626629
>there is plenty of evidence

No there isn't

>I will not go through and post links

That's right.

>>18626808
shill
>>18626629
all the Moon landings are staged, no exception
nobody can land on an orb of light
nobody can go past the first 100km (see >>18626795 )
The Moon landing idea came from a french freemason Jules Vernes, it is a SCI-FI novel and never was anything else. There is a reason why a movie director + Disney were involved in the project.

>>18626304
>it's illegal to fly over the landing sites

Only at a very close distance where it's a chance you could disturb the landing sites.

Satellites have flown over the landing sites at safe distances, and they've taken pictures.

>>18626813
>no one can land on an orb of light

Good thing the moon is a big rock that doesn't emit any light.

>>18626815
that's what your school books and you television are teaching.

>>18626795
Why not let the rocket spray a bunch of paint on the dome while it's up there?

>>18626824
And also reality.

>>18626795
>debunk this if you can.

OK. Neither of them hit anything. They simply stop rotating on their long axis. In fact they're still going up. If they had hit a solid object, they would have smashed into a million pieces.

It's an internal mechanism in the rocket which intentionally stops the spinning, so it can deploy second or third stages.

Proof: the entire video, uncut, shows this happening.

>>18626861
Exactly, can't tell if they're horribly misinformed or just retarded

>>18626795
>>18626813
>>18626859
>>18626861
>>18626832
>>18626872
See the issue with this is 1. These guys don't have the first clue how rockets or 'rocket science' works and 2. They neglect the fact that many countries outside of the US have sent up rockets, most notable, THE USSR, who would have loved to prove the moon landings fake.

>>18626872

It's a combination of retarded and dishonest.

It's stupid to think that video shows a rocket hitting something. It's dishonest to cut it out of the full video showing what's happened.

File: 1485606797537.gif (352KB, 499x289px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 499x289px

>>18622788

Allegedly, we are not "allowed" back on the moon. According to whatever threat is on the moon, they made it clear to us that we are not allowed there. That is why no more space missions to the moon.

According to a very famous and very successful remote viewer, other humanoid entities are stationed there, mining for materials from the moon. There are even images of their mining vehicles and their aircraft vehicles that they use, but NASA has scrubbed/blacked out these images from several upclose satellite images of the moon. The remote viewer even went on to say that one of the entities detected that it was being remote viewed by the guy. This remote viewer's name is Ingo Swann. He has been used by the government for decades and has been extremely accurate with his results of being able to view very far away plains and objects with his ability.

>>18626427
haha wasnt here at the time. that is cgi composite tho

>>18624023
exactly thank you... jesus christ this was the cold war were talking about. Nixon was the president
if they couldnt have went they would have faked it. JFK promised to go back in 61 or whatever... if they could go but had to fake the footage that would be what they did. the TV broadcast is half the pr. they could have just went but thats not good enough propaganda

>>18625481
it was transmitted with a delay via australia. they brought back film as in rolls of pictures. these survived radiation

>>18626952
so you believe something purely of reasoning

Damn man you must work for the CIA, they would obviously say its fake to get people to focus on it instead of true conspiracies...

>>18625900
im talking about the distance of a satellite orbiting the moon and the moons surface

>>18626975
A satellite orbiting the moon can see the landing sites just fine.

There's one right here

>>18623337

File: kubrick.jpg (96KB, 626x406px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 626x406px

>>18626964
that together with literally hundreds of picture anomalies and unexplained deaths in nasa. they promised to go in 61, they were behind russia in the space race, none of them could go and then bam in 69 the us just went, with nixon as president, nasa militarized during the cold war, marines as astronauts, the kubrick connection, look i used to think moon hoaxers were fucking crazy too. just remember that most that think so havent spent the time to research.

>>18626986
your telling me thats not cgi?

>>18627001
Of course not.

>>18626811
we know how to look for ourselves.

>>18627007
No, I don't think you do. That's why you have to suck off the youtube teat.

"its harder to fake the moon landing than to actually go to the moon"
this has to be the most ridiculous claim ever. can anyone tell me why that is true? what do they mean?

>>18627037
I'm not sure why you have trouble following it.

It was technologically possible for them to go to the moon in 1969.


It was not technologically possible for them to have faked it, when you look at all the evidence. They didn't have cgi back then. They didn't have a way to slow-mo the video in live broadcasts to make it look like lower gravity. They didn't have photoshop. None of the photographs show any sign of manipulation, which was primitive in 1969. Etc.

>>18627037
Tinfoil hats claim even the real footage looks fake.
So it must be incredibly difficult to produce footage of a fake moon landing that looks good enough to fool them. It would have to look more real than an actual moon landing. How do you create something like that?

>>18627050
lol. >They didn't have a way to slow-mo the video in live broadcasts to make it look like lower gravity.
it wasnt live. there was ways to have slow mo on tapes. also no cgi was used?
>None of the photographs show any sign of manipulation. literally incorrect.

>>18627061
>it wasn't live

It was.

>there was ways to have slow mo on tapes

Slow mo on film strips, but video is something different, and no, there wasn't.

>literally incorrect

Nope.

File: AS16-117-18815HR.jpg (938KB, 2340x2364px) Image search: [Google]

938KB, 2340x2364px

>>18627059
this is such a retarded argument. there are inconsistencies and anomalies in the photographs, that is why people claim hoax.
front screen projection is used time and time again and frankly it looks ridiculous

>>18627066
hurr durr they would live stream it and risk that literally anything could happen from the moons surface in 1969 LIVE on tv so that the whole world could see there project go to shit. they didnt know anything back then. use your brain

>>18627072
>live stream

Also didn't exist in 1969

>so the whole world could see their project go to shit

That was a risk they took yes. It happened later on 13.

>>18627067
>there are inconsistencies and anomalies in the photographs

No there aren't. You'll occasionally see a bit of damaged film stock, or a lens flare, or the like. But there's nothing whatsoever that suggests any sort of manipulation.

>>18627077
nope it was all a big miracle story kinda like from a hollywood script.
go do your research before coming here talking shit bud

>>18627081
there are literally shadow anomalies, multiple light sources, airbrushed photographs. but thats not manipulation right?

>>18627088
>It worked exactly as planned
>that means it's a miracle

No, it just means they were good engineers.

Landing on the moon is kind of an important historical event, anon. Of course they broadcast it live, just like with every important historical event.

It would be stupid not to.

>>18627092
>there are literally shadow anomalies, multiple light sources, airbrushed photos

No, there are not.

>>18627097
apollo 13 went just as planned?
whatever dude, youre just trolling

>>18627067
Cameras aren't perfect. If you take enough photos of a bunch of flowers there will be inconsistencies and anomalies.
Wouldn't the absence of inconsistencies and anomalies be more suspicious?

>>18627107
troll

>>18627106
Are you talking about Apollo 13 or Apollo 11 now?

Are you claiming Apollo 13 was faked because the crew survived? Fine. The entire Challenger crew was killed, and millions of children saw it live as they were getting ready for school. Is that edgy enough for you?

The fact that a historical event might fail is not a good reason for not showing it live.

>>18627100

Except there are. There are also hundreds of edited satellite photos of the surface. Nasa isn't even hiding those, you can find them on their web collections. Do some digging of your own instead of just saying "nuh uh". Its been posted, discussed, and shown so many times already.

File: challenger_flight_51-l_crew.jpg (536KB, 1111x642px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1111x642px

>>18627127

>>18627144
Nope. It's all been thoroughly debunked.

>>18627150
Same with this. It's not even trying to be credible. In fact it's down right tasteless. One of those people is the brother of the deceased. What sort of asshole even does this?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp

>>18626993
>literally hundreds of picture anomalies and unexplained deaths in nasa
This is what I'm confused about, please link me to the hundreds of anomolies

inb4 flag waving, cross glowing and exposure issues.

Or the deaths- this all seems made up

>>18627061
>>18627066
It simply couldn't be made using film or a disk recorder, it had to be transmitted live. Thats fact unless NASA is 20 years ahead of the worlds leading filmmakers.

>>18627150
'all asians look alike'

go fuck yourself

>>18627163
http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm i just took some website right now, there are hundreds of these sites. the backgrounds are the most interesting. look up apollo 1 fire, there were others too. also the nasa director stepped down a couple of months before apollo 11

>>18627190
First eye catcher is 'multiple light sources'

READ
>>18626436

>>18627198
multiple light sources? there was one light source on the apollo missions

>>18627207
No shit

>>18627190
And here's a site that debunks every claim offered.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>Apollo 1 fire

What about it?

>there were others too

Other what? Fatal accidents? Not until Challenger.

>>18627207
Well let's see. There's the sun. And the earth. There's the highly reflective moon regolith. There's the highly reflective surfaces of the lunar lander and astronauts suits...

Pretty sure that's more than one.

>>18627122
You don't think 100 perfect photos of a moon landing in the 60s would be suspicious?

>>18627249
im not talking about perfect photos. i mean photos with errors, there are thousands of amazing photos up there. which is suspicious

>>18626824
i give up this board.

>>18626902
>According to whatever threat is on the moon, they made it clear to us that we are not allowed there. That is why no more space missions to the moon.
no, it became useless. the soviets had no more interest and technology was way too underdeveloped to do anything more than to collect some rocks and fly them back to earth back in the day. it became a waste of ressources, that's all.

>>18627037
he can tell you why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

File: earth-visual-1024x640.jpg (163KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x640px

To even suggest at this point that the moon landing was fake is ridiculous, I get that the government has lied about a lot of stuff, but the odds of the moon landing being fake is so miniscule that it is not worth mentioning. Do you realize how difficult it would be to fake such a thing to the point where virtually every scientist, astronomer, etc. believes in it? If it was a hoax, then the story has incredible consistency since there is almost no evidence against the moon landing that can't be easily refuted, all the pictures out there that people think pokes holes in the moon landing has been debunked, the observation that there are no stars in one of the pictures for example is easily explained by the camera exposure, you don't see the stars because they needed to have low exposure in order to see shit on the moon, if they didn't you would barely be able to see anything because the reflection of the moon would illuminate too much.

There's also the thing that they could not fake gravity at that point in time with video, in the 60's there was only one camera that could do realistic slo mo and that could only record for 30 seconds, to fake an entire hour of moon walking would be technologically impossible at the time.

>>18627294
Are there any errors that haven't been debunked?

Mythbusters doesn't count as debunked.

Some "expert" saying Nahbro doesn't count as debunked.

>>18627427
There you go then, problem solved!

File: 1412758948220.jpg (334KB, 1983x1566px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1983x1566px

>there are people who believe this is a real photo of a spaceship landed on the Moon

>>18627331
To even suggest at this point that the the Crucifixion and Resurrection was fake is ridiculous, I get that the government has lied about a lot of stuff, but the odds of Jesus being fake is so miniscule that it is not worth mentioning. Do you realize how difficult it would be to fake such a thing to the point where virtually every priest, theologian, etc. believes in it? If it was a hoax, then the story has incredible consistency since there is almost no evidence against the Jesus story that can't be easily refuted.

>>18627519
Yeah.

Why not?

>>18627547
There's evidence of the moon landing. Not so much with Jesus.

>>18627547
Only the resurrection was fake, he really did get crucified.

>>18627568
The point is that millions of people can be convinced of something that is false, and quite easily in fact.

>>18627577
Which is why you should rely on evidence rather than popular consensus.

>>18627586
We agree on that. Probably we do not agree on what conclusion the evidence points to.

>>18627593
you mean that it was never faked, yeah prolly not

>>18622827
Except the Chinese put a rover up there, the Indians have orbited, the Russians never called it on being a fake, and every single point ever made against it having happened can be conclusively debunked.

File: 1479695112117.jpg (133KB, 591x397px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 591x397px

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

10/10 special effects

>>18622852
That one launch made by the private sector? What? SpaceX has launched dozens alone, they aren't the only company.

>>18626304
Illegal to fly anything over the landing sites? You mean like the half dozen imaging satellites that must have done exactly that by now? You realise before long the Chinese or Indians or in fact most likely the private sector will put a lander near enough to it to get pictures? Of course, you won't believe that either. It'll be conveniently faked, too.

>>18623253
No, current tech cannot read a plate from orbit. That would require conditioning of the atmosphere to stop distortion, and probably adaptive optics.

>>18627066
There was a time delay. It was displayed on a video screen in Australia (on time delay), and the world press had to literally film/video it from this video screen, and then retransmit it live via their networks. The moon landing the world saw in 1969 was in fact a "live" fuzzy cam rip from a shitty TV screen.

>>18628676
>there was a delay

Yeah, a whole six second delay

>>18627519
>noones gonna note the perfectly undisturbed dust and on bottom rightm or the fake moon rocks, or the fact that there are no stars and nasa lied about that. as being apart of the navigation... Finally the odd misplacement of the original moon landing tapes.

Frankly there are two kinds of people in this thread, those who see thee truth, and those who aren't ready for it.

frankly the van allen field should be enough, but with enough photoshop of planets and galaxies along with half century of ufo psyops ,you can convince people that star wars and futurama are real and that they aren't more so in a tolkienlike enclosure.

Further I find it amazing hollywood never made a movie about the actual moon landings given their tendacy to leave no stone unturned.

Im not gonna call anyone stupid or imply lack of intelligence, because I believed all my life that conspiracytards and cristians were delusional. Then one day I could see it. I really fought hard not to believe the system was a pack of lies, but this photo is the work of the father of lies.

File: moon_and_earth_lroearthrise_frame_0.jpg (373KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1080px

This is the 60's era photo of the Earth from the surface of the Moon. It's called Earthrise.

File: earthmoon.png (365KB, 650x460px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 650x460px

>>18629735
If this is the equivalent size difference between the Earth and the Moon....

File: 173222545.jpg (37KB, 515x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 515x333px

Then how is this possible?

This is a photo of the Moon taken from the surface of the Earth.

NASA clearly faked their famous Earthrise photograph. And if NASA had to fake that photograph then we clearly never went to the moon.

/thread

>>18622827

Apollo 11

Launched 16 July 1969
Landed on Moon 20 July 1969
Sea of Tranquility
Returned to Earth 24 July 1969

Apollo 12

Launched 14 November 1969
Landed on Moon 19 November 1969
Ocean of Storms
Returned to Earth 24 November 1969

Apollo 14

Launched 31 January 1971
Landed on Moon 5 February 1971
Fra Mauro
Returned to Earth 9 February 1971

Apollo 15

Launched 26 July 1971
Landed on Moon 30 July 1971
Hadley Rille
Returned to Earth 7 August 1971

Apollo 16

Launched 16 April 1972
Landed on Moon 20 April 1972
Descartes
Returned to Earth 27 April 1972

Apollo 17

Launched 07 December 1972
Landed on Moon 11 December 1972
Taurus-Littrow
Returned to Earth 19 December 1972

Did you even look?

>>18629753
Then why did NASA fake this photo?

>>18629735

>>18629742
I think the Earthrise photo is faked by Nasa, because it was a great PR shot, and for whatever reason they could not actually get that shot for real (e.g. either we never went to the moon, or we went but they could not manage to get an iconic shot that was worth printing so they just faked it)

However, you can't just compare the size of objects in 2 pics without stating what lenses and film format were used, since that affects the image. A telephoto lens will flatten all objects into a narrow field of view and make distant objects look closer and larger; a wide angle lens does the opposite.

>>18629763
they didn't. you are jumping to a conclusion without having evidence to support it.

if you make the claim that it didn't happen, you must prove it.

>>18629735
where are the stars
why do the planets change size in later photographs?

>>18630632
The stars are underexposed. The earth and the moon are very bright. If you exposed long enough to see the stars, the earth and moon would be white blobs.

As far as the earth "changing sizes," it doesn't. Sometimes it's zoomed in, sometimes it's not.

>>18627519
this is what i felt all along. like wtf? i mean its hard to be certain of what it would look like irl. just kinda looks like i could have made this myself

>>18627519
does this horizon make sense? looks like theres an edge 300 yards from the lander or something

>>18627827
lmao. can people just atleast agree that the footage is ridiculous. maybe we went but the footage is a joke. looks like a big flat surface with sand and then a backdrop with a distinct line(look at any picture and tell me thats not there) and thats it.

>>18630766
>this footage is ridiculous

I don't see why. It looks exactly the way it's supposed to.

>>18630753
Almost like it's the crest of a low hill or something. But that's unpossible.

>>18630753
The horizon looks very close in a lot of the lunar mission pics, almost as if it were a sound stage. The pics that show a more distant horizon often also have the strange washed-out back projection look to the background

>>18630827
>let's land the lunar rover on top of a small hill, that should be safer than a flat plain

File: Jojo Laser eyes.jpg (15KB, 316x316px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 316x316px

>>18625696

>On the moon.

>No stars and just a black background.

Why do people actually believe we've been to the moon again?

File: hqdefault (6).jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

Sun directly above earth and moon. Moon should be brightly illuminated, just like the top half of the Earth, but it's not, it looks like it's in shadow.

There's no way you would get a proper exposure for the Earth and a dark moon with an extremely bright lunar surface taking up 1/3 of your shot. The moon would be a washed out white blob if the exposure were set to capture the earth.

It was literally not possible to fake it given the camera technology of that era.

>>18631220

It's the middle of the day, retard.

>>18631354
there is no atmosphere on the Moon, no blue sky, no daylight.
You are the retard here, kiddo.

File: facepalm-sisko.gif (976KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 300x300px

>>18631384

It's amazing that in the age of the internet, where you can literally look up how anything on the planet works with a goddamned phone you carry with you everywhere, people still choose to remain this willfully ignorant.

The endarkenment proceeds apace.

File: 1483409858072.jpg (86KB, 829x717px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 829x717px

>>18629742
>Then how is this possible?
it isn't, NASA is drowning in its own bullshit.

>>18631394
>Star trek.
I see you must be an expert in modern sciences

File: zAS11-44-6590HR-composite-small.jpg (839KB, 1591x1582px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1591x1582px

>>18627568
>why not
because

>>18631408

You monkeys legitimately deserve to be sterilized.

>>18631417
nice argumentation, you totally convinced me that NASA isn't full of shit.

>>18631426

I don't give a shit about convincing you.

I barely consider you human.

>>18631432
thats cool bro. you misspelled /b/

>>18622788
Regardless whether or not the Moon landing was staged, we've been there after the fact

>>18631400
lol that picture really made me think for a minute

>>18627827
that was the most edgy thing to do with a coffee pot.

File: fx-AS17-151-23201HR.jpg (1MB, 2363x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2363x2400px

>>18627827
bullshit confirmed on that still showing a shadow cast by the tinfoil lander on its way to the ceiling.

>>18631508
>>18631416
nice finds

File: A17-fireproofman1.jpg (691KB, 2340x2349px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 2340x2349px

>>18631517

>>18622788
have you seen the footage?

Just logically think of if they could have broadcast that footage from the moon, you have your answer.

File: AS17-134-20387HR-smokescreen-small.png (1MB, 1645x1387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1645x1387px

>>18631517
share

>>18631400
Last time we checked the earth wasn't the size of Jupiter.

>>18631541
Earth is flat, we can't go past a force field at 70 miles high.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNmj-JmrR8

>>18631538
the probably had comcast extreme or something like that

>>18631541

So what were these random dudes in silver suits doing on the sound stage? What was their job?

>>18622900
dude.....fucking overcranking, google it. You use sensitive film, and you run it through the camera faster than normal

>but video

Then you play it back at 24fps on a projector screen and shoot that screen with an ntsc video cam

Not saying shit was faked, but if you wanted to do it, that's how

>>18631548
this is not the thread for you shill
if you actually believe this, the rocket stops spinning it doesnt stop accelerating

>>18631563

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

>>18631561
in fireproof suit? he is holding a pole tied to the mini moonman standing in the stage; he is also standing next to that huge spotlight imitating the Sun that must have been really hot. there is another dude with a cap on his left taking a photo.
In that reflection we also see the right hand of the astroactor which actually is a glove from a fireproof suit, he is holding something that's burning and is pouring smoke to blur the sight in the visor. Cheap special effect but that's how shits were done back before the photoshop era.

>>18631564
>, the rocket stops spinning it doesnt stop accelerating
it doesn't decelerate, it hits an invisible wall which even produces a loud noise.

>>18631582

Where did all the smoke go?

>>18631568
who is this guy, what are his credentials and how do I know he isn't morally corrupt and shilling for a fistful of bucks?

>>18631564
check the altimeter, he starts falling as soon as it hits the wall.

>>18631603

You could verify everything he said if you wanted.

Easier to pretend he's shilling, though.

>>18631623
These evidences posted already debunk that shill
>>18631541
>>18631533
>>18631508
>>18631416
>>18631400
>>18627827
>>18627150
>>18626993
>>18625696

>>18625676
>Thats okay reasoning but reasoning has to be backed up by some evidence

All the evidence that both sides of the argument use, I'm suggesting that they are both correct. It might not even be that the footage was cut to hide stuff, simply that the studio footage was better than the on site lunar footage. The whole world was watching, they had to make a show of it.

File: composite-AS11-44-6588HR.jpg (2MB, 2340x2327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2340x2327px

>>18631637
*posted here

this guy is just another shill

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

43KB, 353x261px

>>18631638
>All the evidence that both sides of the argument use
Except there is no evidence left on the other side as they are debunked one after another.

>>18631638
agreed, it could also just be that they didnt have the technology to film live from the surface (which makes sense) but that they went.

theres also a the theory that they went and orbited, sending out the right signals and whatnot but that they never landed and walked on the surface, one of the more complex steps was in fact redocking the lander with the module while it was orbiting the moon for the 230k mile trip back to earth.
this would explain the footage being weird/errors.

>>18631638
>>18631655
>> i mean, how tf could i ever claim to know, sure they were tracking it but we know they knew how to fake the telemetric data/signals.
ALL i am ever saying, is that many photos/video look really shady. they still may have went.

its like a lie that got too big and future us goverments cant really go out and say it was faked during nixons cold war era. imagine the documents being released in 2100 or something... they could never know about the internet/modern technology

>>18631637
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ApolloEarth/ApolloEarth.HTM

you guys are like children

>>18631666

Personally I believe we went to the moon, but there were no people on it.

>>18631637

You are literally mentally ill.

>>18631650
Then please debunk how we managed to get evidence from the moon such as rocks. Or how we faked the filming of it and before that, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

this thread havent really touched many subjects
-moon rocks missing/ fake moon rocks
-all original footage erased (!)
-all original blueprints erased
-van allen belts

>>18631686
>already talked about how van allen belts are complete bullshit only giving them 1/300 of fatal dose

All the original footage was not erased, was lost and brought back. What moon rocks went missing

>>18631684
moon rocks can be collected on earth in antartica among other places (verner von braun (nasa scientist and former nazi) went to antartica in 1967 to examine these rocks, look it up)
moon rocks were gathered on the moon before 1969 using russian unmanned satellites, look it up
also, these moon rocks are missing
they gave one to an amsterdam museum which turned out to be petrified wood

>>18631697
>these moon rocks are missing
no some were stolen, not even half are missing kid

>>18631675
Damn.

No earth in here.

We are.

3301 e v e r y w h e r e

>>18631689
was lost and brought back. not suspicious at all.
see >>18631697
i do agree that the van allen belts is not the strongest argument

>>18631706
Don't you think it would have just been easier to have never given out 'fake rocks' to dozens of other countries

>>18631709
sure, seems logical but some of them literally were fake. donno what to tell you bud.

>>18631721
Tell me how you know they were 'literally fake'
or were they 'LIKE LITERALLY FAKE BRO'

>>18631750
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

even still, the argument is irrelevant since moon rocks can be collected on earth

>>18631588

If it hit a wall it would have bounced off rather than continue ascending.

>>18631778
what if the wall was sticky?

>>18631650

Those aren't strings. You do realize that video technology wasn't all that great, especially while in the voids of space right?

File: Dare you enter my magical realm.png (15KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 225x225px

>>18631802


Wouldn't it have stopped spinning completely instead of slowly down significantly?

>>18631778
No, if it had hit a wall it would have been smashed into a thousand pieces.

>>18631675
huh, good link
would love to hear counter arguments on this one, and read it first..

>>18625861
>>18625876
>>18625880

They couldn't build a video camera that recorded at a higher frame-rate?

>>18631845
no cuz hurr durr its easier to go to the moon than to fake it autism

>>18631845
no apparently the greatest technical minds of the world with unlimited budgets couldn't figure this out (till a few years later)

>>18631827
>>18631588
stop debating flat earth psy op shill and go look at >>18631675

>>18631862
lol this. they literally worked with kubrick in 68 to, and no im not saying he faked it or whatever nasa worked with him on 2001 a space odyssey

>>18631862

>le nasa built a super advance camera technology instead of just building a rocket maymay

>>18631874
>all the technology to land men on the moon and bring them back is much easier to build than an slightly advanced camera system

>>18631887

You have literally no idea how advanced the camera system you'd need would be.

You could educate yourself, but I guess wallowing in ignorance is more entertaining.

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

>>18631845
We know what cameras they took and no, they didn't work that way. Second, they transmitted, not recorded. Third, if they had scanned at a different rate they wouldn't have processed correctly.

Did you even watch the explanation?

>>18631894
>they transmitted live video and sound from the moon in 1969

Okay so, one thing I never see with regards to moon landing conspiracies is like... we had the capability. We were constantly sending up ships. People could go stand there and watch them launch. We had the technology to land on the moon and then take off again. We were already putting huge amounts of money into it.

So. Barring any outlandish re-imaginings of the earth's configuration or basic physics (where do all the shuttles/satellites/space stations go then?) for what reason would the US fake it instead of just... fucking doing it with all of its abundant resources?

>>18631893
rofl how many times are you gonna link that dude
oh hes a low level director and he appears to be smart he must be right

>>18631905
Yes. Which was picked up on earth, recorded and re-transmitted to the rest of the world.

>>18631916
he wears the beret of smug truth, though

>>18631894
We know what cameras they took
are you listening to yourself? they couldnt have used another camera if they faked it?

>>18631916
>he's smart, therefore he's wrong

Nice argument.

>>18631913
>We had the technology to land on the moon and then take off again
Was this actually tested on the moon prior to the manned moon landings?

>>18631923
literally what
?????

>>18631905

Now you don't believe in radios either?

>>18631916

Because he understands how cameras work and none of you seem capable of grasping it.

>>18631922

Do you have proof that they had magic cameras that didn't exist yet?

>>18631929
There are many people who understand how cameras work and believe NASA's photo evidence was faked.

>>18631927
I mean, landing on the moon is the hardest part, and that was done unmanned numerous times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing#Unmanned_landings

If you can safely land, taking off is extremely easy, since there's so little gravity. After that, it's just a matter of piloting to reconnect with the main shuttle.

>>18631927
nope. landing and redocking while in orbit is the hard part. if they fail they would do so on live TV across the world if we are to believe this. meaning a disaster propaganda wise for the us during the cold war. all they knew was they could send unmanned probes/satellites to the moon. seriously imagine anything, ANYTHING going wrong on this so called live broadcast? everyone must realize they atleast had backup fake footage.

>>18631936

None

>>18631936
Then why can't they produce any evidence that it was faked?

>>18631935
>slighly higher fps
>magic

>>18631940
They had already landed unmanned multiple times. Redocking is difficult but like. So is everything else about space travel? And these people were highly trained, already experienced pilots?

>>18631939
yet Armstrong couldn't control the test lander and crashed it every time during test runs on earth, but no worries, worked fine on the fucking moon

>>18631948
go look at some of it in the thread maybe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY
ladies and gentlemen; the three military men with top secret clearance clean shaven and sharp looking after spending 8 days in spaces in a small triangular box. they sure sound amazed and excited. one became an alcoholic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwPYl7a9Yuk

https://youtu.be/jkdc5bkTMwc?t=20 this wast the first man on the moon.

>>18631966

>doesn't understand the difference between flying in an atmosphere and flying in space

every space travel that took place did so in low earth orbit except in 1969-1972

>>18631966
>crashed it every time
>actually only crashed once
>the two other lunar lander test crashes were by other test pilots
>all three crashes were the result of mechanical or electrical failures
>countless safe tests performed on the remaining two test vehicles
>fucking okay then

>>18631675
Awesome Thanks for posting

>>18631857
>>18631862
You guys are genuinely fucking retarded- it isn't about framerate as much as it is the process of slowing the footage down.

>>18631968
I won't deny that the elbow thing was a bit weird and he is talking like he has a stutter but neither of us can imagine how we would feel after returning from another planet and possibly seeing some shit we never have, and 'possibly' being told to not talk about certain topics...

>>18632699
>slowing the footage down
well in film, giving the appearance of slowing down the footage often requires more frames per second to be filmed.

So Normal speed might be filmed at 24fps and projected at 24 fps

Smooth slow motion might be filmed at 48fps and projected at 24fps, for example

So in film, at least, to ensure a smooth slow motion effect, framerate is key to the effect.

>>18623233
yes, kid

>>18625481
>It wasn't film. It was video
/tv/ memes finally arrive