”redpilled” people believe in the moon landing

kek

>no visible stars
>astronauts not instantly fried by solar radiation
>livestreaming from the moon in 1960s

why would there be dust blown during takeoff?

she's hungry because she's fat

There is no moon. It is a giant sack of sheckles the Space Jews have been funneling from their lizard men plants on earth.

>no visible stars
are you retarded?
do you know what overexposure even is?
solar radiation is monitored by them and there is not constant radiation

muh meds
muh flat earth
muh you to stupid to get it goy

the moon missions raked in millions of easy shekels. next you'll tell me jews hate money.

shill on damage control >muh jews
shills are getting desperate.

yeah i was about to say that
there are more of these less space more gibs protests

millions of shekels that could be otherwise spent on israel AID or welfare for niggers, as presented here:
no wonder niggers and kikes hate moon landing so much

Attached: 1526793558117.png (880x844, 922K)

>It supposedly took NASA just 8 years of planning to put a man on the moon back in the 1960s.
We put an unmanned probe on the moon in 1958. People had been planning it for fifty years at that point.
>But it's been over 50 years since then, and despite all of the technological advances, we've yet to do it again.
It hasn't even been fifty years since Apollo 11. And we did it six times. Almost 7. The last time we did it was 1972. We, and Russia, and Japan, and China, and India, and the EU have sent unmanned probes to the moon both before and since. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lunar_probes
The means by which we did it have been used to launch space probes to other planets countless times since then, including three probes which have left the solar system. The unmanned probes can spend longer on the moon with fewer resources and protections, and can accomplish everything that sending manned probes can do. The only reason to send man to the moon again would be to build a base - which can also be done by unmanned probes.
There is no reason to build a base just to do it, the risk-reward ratio is too high just to say we've done it.
Jews have been trying to say it was faked since the 70s because the project was done almost entirely by goys and led by a Nazi.

Attached: Capricorn One.jpg (580x810, 89K)

Attached: 1544934894785.png (356x256, 146K)

You do know that all this slide stuff makes people better at uncovering bullshit.

Random question: If for whatever crazy reason NASA needed to get a dude on the moon absolutely asap or the whole world would explode or something, how fast could they throw together a mission given the current state of the space program?

Attached: ignignokt.gif (200x168, 2K)

>I repeat what I'm told
Goood goy.

Good arguement im convinced

>I repeat what I'm told
good goy

please keep this thread going I have to pop out for breakfast and hope to read more when I return.

Only if you show your flag you kike!

to add to it
every retarded point debunked yet you keep repeating like a dumb nigger space is just radioactive all the time
what kind dont know nigger radiation
radiation what type nigger?

Mossad is getting lazy.

>I don't know anything but please debunk me
Kikes. I swear.

>Argument is refuted
>Ingore said argument and tell user he is a "good goy"

This isn't how you have a discussion with someone

>muh dust
space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html

"The smallest particles were seen by the Apollo astronauts to fly right out over the horizon and keep on going," said Philip Metzger of NASA's Kennedy Space Center (KSC). "Depending on the actual velocity they may have gone halfway around the moon or more. In most cases they would only travel until they hit a natural terrain feature, such as a crater rim or a mountain range."

These minute specks of lunar dust are estimated to have been propelled at speeds of between 0.6and 1.5 miles per second (up to 5,400 mph or 8,690 kph). That's nearly fast enough to escape the moon's gravity and enter orbit around the sun.

Study of the Surveyor camera and mechanical scoop returned to Earth by the Apollo 12 astronauts revealed it had been sandblasted by lunar dust.

"There were what looked liked permanent shadows cast into the Surveyor," Metzger said. "Cosmic radiation in the lunar environment had darkened the surface of the Surveyor and then the spray of fine dust from the Apollo 12 LM removed that darkening wherever the spray could reach."

>i called him a kike
>hello fellow Jow Forumsacks
imagine mossad defending the achievement of nazi germans and white americans

>muh not an argument
Clean your room, goy.

Yikes. Kikes sure are sensitive.

Alright you've convinced me the moon landing is real

>tfw this stop-motion bullshit was played to the world and they believed it
youtu.be/e7mVTFAspPk

The older it is, the lower budget production it is. That is the most telltale sign, it is like watching the evolution of cheap sci-fi films.

>what is low frame rate

kys

Why is the earth rotating at 2x the framerate of the stop motion animation above?

You think I hadn't already considered that?

Because you need thrust to push the lander off.

>The astronauts saw dust blown around
>Just take our word for it even though video and photos show absolutely nothing like this happening
>Even though it's 1/6th of Earths gravity and you'd obviously get a huge cloud of dust

And the answer to that is that it was always common practice in stop-motion to have a new movement every two frames of film. They did it here thinking it wouldn't be noticed.

A year, with the ability to stage from the ISS, instead of launching everything on one Saturn V. Most the of the Saturn platform was to lift everything out of the gravity well - the actual thrusters and payload that went to the moon was the top of it, the 3rd stage is what launched the CM and LEM to the moon. Stages 1 and 2, the bulk of it, were just to get out of the atmosphere.

That's why SpaceX happened - so we have a reliable, lower cost way of putting things in orbit. A vehicle to reach the moon could be bigger, if built in stages, in orbit. And, would require way less fuel - and risk - than a Saturn V.

I dimly recall talk of using the shuttle for that exact purpose, or the program that was supposed to come after that.

We have technology now, especially the deep water stuff, that would make surviving on the moon a cakewalk, compared to what we had in the 60's. We just don't have a reason, or the budget.

Can you provide any forensic evidence that this is true?

Can you also go and provide me any names, dates, footage, and physical evidence of how, when, why and where this was faked.

Also, never forget that NASA 'lost' the HD footage of the moon, leaving us only with a 3rd generation film which was actually filmed off of a TV monitor in Australia somewhere (not making this up).

Sounds convincing.

The article makes it clear that you don't get a cloud of dust because the engine's exhaust propels the dust particles. The gravity and vaccum of the Moon doesn't support a "cloud", are you a fucking moron or something?

Get a good telescope, like one that lets you see one arc degree of the edge of the moon. Then point it right at the middle of the moon and enjoy going blind. The Astronauts' visors were darker than standard welding glasses and coated with a gold film to protect them from radiation and the light reflected from the surface. So were their cameras.
If you'd ever done lunar photography, you'd know you need to put at least a three stop ND filter to get a clear image with any detail, and that's from the surface of the earth. That's enough of a filter to block out the stars from earth, never mind the level of filter necessary from the surface of the moon.

Attached: Moon600mm.jpg (604x396, 6K)

This. They literally forced all news stations and outlets to record the broadcast from another screen as opposed to allowing them a feed of the master. The cameras they were using were extremely outdated in the first place at the time, having that projected onto a screen and then telling the world that they had to view a recording of a projection of a low quality film as the only evidence that it ever happened. It is because they were aware of the inconsistencies and had to filter them out somehow.

Hmmmmm...

Attached: 6898.jpg (3900x3900, 3.05M)

>thinks Jow Forums is about rational arguments.

Anon1: "Where's the proof?"
Anon2: "Here's the proof"
Anon1: "JEW!"

It's literally a community of Chris-Chans. This is what it would be like to talk to Chris-Chan, if he bought into this particular conspiracy theory.

Such is life on this Patagonian picture trading forum.

>lunar reflectors
I have yet to see any evidence other than numbers on a screen alledgedly "Proving" that the reflectors are there due to increased reflection. Why not anything more substantial?

If you can get a telescope as a private citizen and show me proof of previous human activity on the moon, I will take this back.

the story is they didn't "lose it" they TAPED OVER IT

"HD" didn't exist then, retard.

The footage was backup, from the live feed, converted into data the telemetry recorders could store. It wasn't "official" anything.

But don't let that stop you from drooling at the mouth.

The one disapointing thing about Jow Forums is how lazy you are. All of this was covered decades ago, by our insane grandfathers. You're too lazy to keep up on it, and just make shit up as you go along, based on "what I heard, reeeeee".

Yep. Almost forgot.
They literally "Taped over" the only master footage they had of the alleged first ever man on the moon. Consider that raiders of the lost ark's master is kept in an ex-salt mine under layers of lock and key security doors and a safe.

Hmmm

Imagine seeing this stuff in proper quality

youtube.com/watch?v=K1Zy2BkRv9Q

Limeynigger, please. The live feed was broadcast around the world. I watched it, as a kid. I guarantee everyone you know over 50 did, too - even as poor as your country is, SOME people had TVs in the UK in 1969.

HD has always existed, retard.
Anything recorded to 16mm film (or larger) is literally more HD than the digital HD we have today if it is properly preserved.

>HD footage
>1969
Fuck off. The TV cameras used on the mission were low resolution and 15FPS.

>If you can get a telescope as a private citizen

It's physically impossible to look at the Lunar Landings because the diamater of a telescope required is beyond what is currently avalible.

You also need to understand that your opinion on reflectors is not evidence. In order to prove a conspiracy exits you need to provide names, dates, eyewitnesses etc. You need to provide evidence that would reach a courtoom.

It's a shame because government skepticism get's washed away by it's assocation with conspiracy theories. Rather than talking about how inefficent and slow NASA has become, the argument shifts to insane and unbelievable theories, which really puts off a lot of people

The "Live feed" you were watching was a recording of a projector screen. The direct feed was never broadcast.

>"HD" didn't exist then, retard.

LOL.
Yes user, that footage was the absolute best they could manage in the 60s.

And as the user pointed out above, the reason the quality is shit is because NASA taped over their originals.
The one we have is filmed off of another monitor. I'm not making that up.

Imagine that. Taping over the most important event of human history, losing it forever.

LOL. It wasn't "master" anything, you incredible buffoon.

Oh, why bother. This assburger isn't going to listen anyway.

>repeats what he's told
>cries about others repeating what they're told

>He thinks youtube is a valid source for information
arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.6768.pdf
Moon landing happened, deal with it.

Attached: apollo 14.png (1000x1000, 513K)

"HD" is a modern TV standard, you fucking moron. Film and video doesn't have a resolution, nobody gave a shit about that until HD tv came along.

LOL. You believe any old thing, don't you?

Attached: Falling for Bait.png (625x626, 86K)

like look, the only thing I know is that NASA has done some shady af shit in the past.
I know I have gps on my phone and I can look at google earth. I know that I see lights in the sky and I see a sun and moon that are the same size. I know that the tesla car in space looked weird. I know that there are plenty of doge cam vids of high earth orbit that don't show any curve.
I know there are a lot of conflicting shit and I know the outrage people have when you just wan't consistency with images/vids and shit that "proves" the official narrative

I know enough to think there might be another possibility out there.

It was the only true recording of the direct feed ever made. All other recordings and broadcasts to date are a video of the feed being projected onto a screen and then re-filmed from said screen. NASA refused to allow any broadcasters a direct feed.

The only thing that raises my eyebrows is how invested these raving lunatics are - but that kind of goes with the territory, there's a lot of mental disorders running around these threads, parroted by naive young idiots who think it's "cool" and "edgy" to deny reality.

>Film and video doesn't have a resolution
Okay.
1) Video literally has a resolution.
2) Film resolution is measured by molecules of light-reactive molecules, similar to pixels, on any given frame of film.

There are far more light-reactive particles on 16 or 35mm film than there are pixels in 4k resolution. That is why 4k scans of well preserved 35mm film looks stunning, even if they are from the 1940s. Have you ever seen a digital scan of an Alfred Hitchcock master? More HD than HD.

This

phys.org/news/2009-09-indian-satellite-moon-scientist.html

and we are done here. Don't make anymore threads.

>Trusting space-poos

My opinion is because of low intelligence and narcissism. It's too much of an excuse to say they are lunatics, because they have the ability to actually question the government.

Unfortunately conspriacy theories are like a fast food for the mind, because it's easy to digest, but not so good in the long term. Then you add to that the the warm of feeling of being associated with a minority of people who go agaisnt their opressive society.

These threads are so utterly boring and repetitive, because the vast majority of questions are explained in one google search, yet most responses are simply met with a snarky, hateful attitude

>India is now involved in the conspiracy

Boring

The visual effects for that shit were hilarious, I have to admit.

When you look at it in slow motion, you can see the RBG fireworks when the pod launches. Funniest shit ever.

Anyone making the argument that high quality footage didn't exist in the 60s is basically trolling honestly. Have people never watched a movie in their life?

The footage people know, the famous moon footage, is filmed off a monitor, the originals got taped over. NASA admits this, it isn't some conspiracy theory I'm making up.
Infact it's obvious when you view it that it's filmed off a screen, has all the artifacts like you get.

Character assassination is still character assassination however it is framed. Anyway, I enjoy these discussions. The moon landing should be discussed just as the holocaust should be discussed. If the truth really is as easily explainable and irrefutable (on both subjects) as people claim it is. Why do so many questions either get avoided or left with answers that only bear more questions?

I am someone that has and will readily change his mind on a subject based on evidence. I separate emotion from opinion.

It is and was in almost every case claimed to be a global conspiracy. India, having a space program, hasn't not been involved in the conspiracy since the inception of said program.

this guy literally believes lee harvey is the one who mer'c jfk

Because there's no air, schlomo

is the claim that NASA had secret HD footage of the moon landing that they deleted? Or am I misunderstanding it?

>will readily change his mind on a subject based on evidence.
They collected lunar regolith and brought it back to Earth.

>The moon landing should be discussed just as the holocaust should be discussed.

Doesn't mean there is any value in it

>Why do so many questions either get avoided or left with answers that only bear more questions?

That's your interpretation, the vast majority of people don't see or care about how you view footage or what your opinion is of NASA. You can ask a million questions, but as long as you provide no evidence of a hoax, it remains an unbelievable theory.

In simpler words, questions asked is not evidence, they are questions.

If India is now involved, you need to post evidence that India is involved, otherwise you simply making up explanations as to why counter evidence is incorrect.

The lander has thrust from the fuel used to launch it. (apparently this is invisible too according to the official video).

This would naturally push dust around.
It would push a lot of dust around because it's in 1/6th's gravity.

>pictures for ants
I don't understand why in this day and age we don't have highly detailed extremely zoomed HD pictures of every single inch of dirt on the moon. It doesn't have clouds. It doesn't have an atmosphere. It's extremely easy to photograph. The cheapest and most basic satellite technology could do it. We have 2000 of these things floating around our planet. Not one that took pictures of the moon that aren't for ants.

I'm not saying I'm decided that the moon landing is fake. But of course that picture isn't going to cut it. If people believe that the moon landing can be faked then of course they believe that nasa can produce fake pictures for ants, it is obviously much easier.

>Moon rocks are really from the moon
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

I don't care who killed JFK. Everyone involved in the assination is now dead, all evidence is gone, and no investigation will ever occur.

Talking about JFK or the Moon landing as a conspiracy is a waste of time, becasue the real crimes are being commited RIGHT NOW, yet you are wasting time on unbelievable and unproveable theories

space.com/6994-nasa-erased-moonwalk-tapes-restores-copies.html

And this apparently too
gaia.com/article/nasa-destroys-tapes

Nice plea to ignorance brainlet, did you even read the paper I linked?

NASA doesn't mess around when it finds out someone has a moon rock too.

>A 75-year-old woman who tried to sell a paperweight containing a speck of moon rock may try to hold a federal agent liable for detaining her for two hours in a public parking lot in urine-soaked pants, a federal appeals court decided unanimously Thursday.

latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-woman-detained-moon-rock-20170413-story.html

Because the dust is blown in a vaccum, and in low gravity, the dust reaches a high velocity therefore it does not act in the same manner as on Earth.

Because no telescopes exist that can do this

Just to clarify, the link provided shows that the US were giving out fake moon rocks, shown to be petrified wood, to tens of different countries as "Gifts" only for them to effectively say "Oh, we didn't know they weren't real, we will investigate" (no results from said investigation, just silence)

Who collected chunks of petrified wood, gave them to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (you would think they would know) as gifts to give foreign governments?

>I don't care "if we landed on the moon". Everyone involved is now (almost) dead. All evidence is gone (or fubard) and no investigation will ever occur.

One who knows the past knows the future.

Why do you want to prove the lolohoax happened?

>A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
>Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.

Well well well.

Attached: frasier.png (368x425, 249K)

why would they care about getting it back if it's fake? They would just say someone faked it and it had nothing to do with nasa

My post asked for high definition picture. Does your document contains high definition zoomed picture of the moon from a lunar satellite? Just kidding. I did click on it. I know it doesn't.

>Because no telescopes exist that can do this
Who said telescopes? Satellites exist that can do this. Don't tell they don't. They do. It would be extremely easy with today's technology. The Earth is circled by 2000 satellites. None dedicated to taking high definition pictures of the moon. The proof of the lunar landing is a big arrow pointing at a pixel.

Yeah, and what have you learned after decades of questiong JFK, or the Moon Landings? What have you achieved? How many people have you prosecuted? How many courtcases have occured?

You can repeat fancy lines all you want, you are not convincing me that any of you retards are acheiving anything

Hah. I wonder why they would be so desperate to keep civilians away from their "moon rocks" - Maybe because they know that many of the cattle are skeptical and would get it tested. Looks like they never thought a government would, though. They were very wrong...