Were the apollo missions as advertised?
Was it a plot to develop the minuteman iii?
Are people who question it conspiritards or are people who affirm it cnn cuckbois?
Continued from
Did humans land on the moon?
Ryder Watson
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
ehs.stanford.edu
quora.com
twitter.com
Aaron Robinson
we landed on the moon, for this reason the thread will be 404'd, good riddance brainlets. Join us on /sci/ for real scientific discussion, or go read a book. Do anything but this moon retardation shit.
Dominic Howard
Shut down discussion like a real man of science. Day of the rake can't come soon enough.
Gavin Rivera
No, but the Earth is flat. Earth is the center of the universe because consciousness is only found on Earth, and consciousness is what perceives the universe. Essentially, even if the Earth may logically appear to be round like all other celestial bodies, the entire universe is mapped around the Earth, so the Earth is actually flat.
Luis Smith
Meh.
Missions were real.
Kubrick was hired to film a fake just in case, finished at least a year before actual landing.
Minuteman was an unrelated project.
Elijah Ortiz
This is thr best video I've found on the subject.
An irish dude in the previous thread thought he had debunked it, so you can go back and look at his arguments. I think the video holds up, but I'm curious to hear if you think any parts in the video are wrong.
Robert Perez
Curious, so you think the public has never seen Kubrick's fake?
Charles Anderson
>I like these topics because I want to learn what I might not yet know. You like it, because you can "debunk" and enforce a status quo.
No, I have learned plenty about the Apollo missions, space, and the earth in general since I started debunking moon hoaxers and flat earthers a few months ago.
>Anyone that uses the word "debunked" does so because they have a pro-establishment bias.
No, I use it because it's the correct term for what I'm doing here.
>Debunk
>expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief).
>The fact that you can't have a lighthearted laugh about a line that was clearly intended as lead-in to a new thread, shows how rigidly you are approaching the subject, once more.
I don't take kindly to people spreading anti-intellectual tripe under the guise of "joking". It only serves to make people stupider.
Joshua Nelson
>if you think any parts in the video are wrong.
The video takes numerous statements out of context and extrapolates ridiculous conclusions from said out of context quotes.
Ryan Hernandez
Yes. Kubrick shot on film.
The plan for Apollo was to bring back 16mm film, live TV transmission was not planned initially. So Kubrick shot a fake on 16mm film.
Somewhere along the line Chris Kraft at NASA bullied engineers that he must have live TV so he can see what is going on in the spacecraft. And since live TV was available media showed it to the world.
16mm films were indeed brought back but since film takes time to develop media had no interest and it just went to archive. Public never seen them until Spacecraft Films paid NASA to make digital copies it now sells on DVD.
Brayden Ortiz
>I don't take kindly to people spreading anti-intellectual tripe under the guise of "joking". It only serves to make people stupider.
Are you still buttblasted over a single line that was a monopoly joke?
You made claims about the VAB that will take me time to research, that doesn't mean I either agree or disagree at this point.
I am not convinced at all that the quotes were "taken out of context".
This is a case of "the lady doth protest too much". The polish guy with OSHA regulations stands a better chance of ending up convincung me.
Too be honest, playing on the man like I do towards you isn't exactly high-brow either. I try to get multiple perspectives of an event to find where my time can best be spent researching it.
I think you are too trusting in regards to corrections when Nasa is caught in a lie, as well as quora quotes, which can have good leads, but why would you use them as a source?
John Fisher
Mind the timing here.
If Kubrick filmed the fake using filming of 2001 as a cover then he had to finish filming the fake in 1967 at the latest, as the movie premiered in 1968 (postprocessing typically takes one year).
This means the fake had to be commissioned at least one year before, i.e. 1966, and 1965 seems more likely.
That was before the engineers started cooking Apollo TV system.
Further, Apollo TV system was an unusual design (not standard NTSC) to the point that the media feed was obtained by pointing cameras of TV crews at monitors showing Apollo feed (and this is why quality was shit). Of course you can argue that it was possible that Kubrick's film was played before Apollo camera, but why go through this when they could just play it before NTSC camera and say to the media here, get the signal from this cable? Both simpler and better image.
Tyler Gutierrez
>Did humans land on the moon?
No, but Americans did.
Gabriel Harris
>but why go through this when they could just play it before NTSC camera and say to the media here, get the signal from this cable? Both simpler and better image.
If the goal is to deceive either the public or soviets with the video, then you wouldn't want a simpler, better image, rather, you would want more impurities that both hides the falseness and gives room to reason away any found evidence of falseness.
Aiden Campbell
ehs.stanford.edu
> Therefore, exposure to a non-radiation worker must not exceed 0.1rem/year.
quora.com
quora.com
Apollo crews received between 0.16 and 1.4 rem, i.e. between 1.6x and 14x the legal limit.
For comparison radiation sickness starts at 100 rem.
Ryder Butler
more importantly, wtf was the whole thing for
Lucas Jones
Buzz Aldrin knows the answer. Go ask him!
Hunter Kelly
If the goal is to deceive you don't brag that you have live TV, you go with the original plan of bringing back the 16mm film.
You have to fake stills anyway and stills are much easier to analyze for anomalies.
(Indeed NASA was caught releasing images which don't match original photos and some originals have obvious signs of airbrushing.)
Jordan King
Caleb Gray
Nathaniel Ward
That rover is literally on the opposite side of the moon.
Pics of Hadley Valley without rover tracks or GTFO.
Andrew Moore
Maybe because they landed somewhere else on the moon altogether, lol.
Why would they find evidence where they landed?
Your source claims to be an american jewish zionist source in tel aviv. It's a hoax site.