Apollo landings debunked in 5mins

Attached: tapei5641w.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Attached: AS11-40-5920.jpg (930x445, 64K)

>why haven't other countries blown the whistle?

Because the probably blackmail the US for money. In 1972, the Soviets were given 1/4 of the entire US grain supply which shot up 50% the next day on the market, causing hardship for ordinary Americans. The National Guard had to be sent into the New York docks to force the workers by gun point to load up the ships.

Von Braun said the only way to get to the moon would be with 3 massive rockets the size of the Empire state buildings which would each weigh as much as the Queen Mary. He said the chance of successfully landing man on the moon with 1960s technology was less than 1 in 10,000.

If they could goto the moon first time with in 1969 with the technology of the time, we would have bases on the moon by now.

Attached: fakedApollo - Copy.gif (1279x1280, 2.05M)

Bump

>How could are greatest achievement be so far in the past?
First of all this thread is bait
Second of all it was the greatest astronomical achievement we have made
Third of all we’ve been to the moon many times.

>Classic but good.
NASA Kelly Smith says we can't go through the van allen belts yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=FbDZS6B2V4M

ok user, how many other countries have taken pictures of the Apollo flag on the moon?

NONE

Any GOOD documentary out there explaining both sides of the story?

This one is the funniest to me.
How was the camera tracking it?
The "sparks" look to me like they (Kubrick and co.) scratched the film and then colored it in with translucent ink or something similar.

They have an explanation for the camera tracking it, but you're right the very bad 1960 sparks is absolutely awful.

Yes sir, there are loads of pro Apollo landing videos on youtube, but rarely do you find both being examined together. What you need to understand is, Apollo has been proven to historical standards of evidence but NOT to the scientific standard of proof which needs to be a pictures of the flag that is:

>independent i.e a picture take by another country
>verifiable i.e it can be confirm by others as true
>repeatable i.e if you took another picture of the flags a year later they would still be there.

>Group Think VS Truth

/our boy/

youtube.com/watch?v=wehIEzdNmGA

How does NASA "ban" other nations from coming close to the bullshit old landing sites?

HMMM

>How many other countries have taken a picture of the Apollo flags on the moon?
>NONE.

As a selenonologist I can confirm this is true. I've been waiting for dacdes.

Explain the Apollo reflectors, OP.

Meh, no-one really says it's futuristic.

>How does NASA "ban" other nations from coming close to the bullshit old landing sites?
>HMMM

It wasn't NASA per se, it was the US government!
Here's the proof from NASA and the LAW they passed. I suppose if anyone tried to show differently they will no longer pay them the bribe?

“President Donald Trump on Tuesday, March 21 signed the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, which includes a section [Sec. 831] directing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) [a position yet to be filled] to assess the issues that relate to “protecting and preserving historically important Apollo program lunar landing sites and Apollo program artifacts residing on the lunar surface, including those pertaining to Apollo 11 and Apollo 17,” the first and last missions to land astronauts on the [M]oon.

> National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017

congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442

HMMMMM

The moon itself is a giant reflector.

One would have to assume sir, that these were laid by previous classified launches of which there were 38. Or on one of the previous unmanned missions.

It's not a definite answer, because I don't know.

These gifs are pretty damning, to be honest

Yeah, this is so obvious. How can something reflect sunlight, but not a damn laser beam?

Quite so, I would love nothing more than the Apollo missions to be true, as someone who understands the concept of 'scientific proof' I know that we need independent, verifiable, repeated proof of the apollo landings - something like a photo of each flag from another country.

It pains me that we still do not have that 50yrs later. Instead of sitting on the fence, I decided to believe we didn't go, simply because it's still not proven to the scientific bar.

>You rarely ever find videos of Apollo footage and them being examined together
Literally every conspiracy theorist video ever

We bounced laser off the moon in the 1950s.
I'm not disputing that we are not bouncing lasers off reflector pads now, this seems to be the case, I am disputing man actually walking on the moon, which at present seem improbable.

Israel recently sent up a Rover, which could plant flags, this really makes you think doesnt it.

It's a difficult dichotomy, since people like me will point to the fact Apollo has never been proven to a scientific standard of proof - thus it didn't happen. There's no point looking at all the other claims, until another country flies over the moon and photos the flags and releases it to the public.

>We bounced laser off the moon in the 1950s.

Correction; you were TOLD we bounced a laser off the moon. The question is whether or not it was off a reflector pad or not.

It's undeniable that we could do that with or without a reflector, so the question is really whether or not we ever went and put one down or not.

Have you seen 3rd party proof of such an object existing there? I'm not saying we did or didn't, but you can't simply trust NASA to be honest considering their track record, and moreover our own government track record.

Of course, it's 'futuristic, no other human being has walked upon another celestial body apart from an alleged 12(?), and they still can't do it today.

>reflectors
I've read some papers, I think at least one of them was independent. The Apache Point Apollo laser range is some what independent and is the only observatory able to hit the reflectors. But I believe very recently the Chinese may have done it, although, I cannot find any journal articles to support this.

i was a contractor with the Navy's clementine mission back in the 90s. We were not allowed to examine the landing Apollo sites.

I don't want to get all woo woo but there is some weird stuff on the moon and we didn't put it there.

if only we knew when the capsule starts moving and at what speed, hmm... Nah its fake

Perhaps a reflector is simply not needed and is more of a story to help NASA prop up their claim that we landed?

Can you elaborate in more detail how you were informed and with any specifics regarding stuff on the moon?

It's not really mumbo jumbo anymore. More and more people are finding weird shit there, without NASA's help.

Attached: 1373876584686.jpg (480x360, 15K)

Maybe, he signed it because it was the 50th anniversary and maybe he was trying to make it a historical site because we landed there.
HMMMM

that's an incredible revelation!
I know that the VLT started a project to resolve the Apollo artefacts, but they were prevented from doing so. I think, according to their calculations they may have been able to do it.

>I don't want to get all woo woo but there is some weird stuff on the moon and we didn't put it there.

Have you heard of Karl Wolfe's testimony of what the Ranger Recon 8 probe beamed back?

Yes sir, that's what they say of course, but at the same time it now make the Apollo mission unfalsifiable, which means it can never be proven. Ergo if it can't be proven in science it never happened, or at best remains a theory.

It was ingenius, not advanced.

>It's not really mumbo jumbo anymore. More and more people are finding weird shit there, without NASA's help

Your pic is from a fake film, made by a french/Belgium artist who admitted it. However, the attention to detail of the capsule is impressive.

>Have you heard of Karl Wolfe's testimony of what the Ranger Recon 8 probe beamed back?
he's full of shit. he said he examined lunar orbiter data before the thing was even launched. his timeline/story is whacked out.

The Soviets are political, scientific and cultural enemy admitted we went to the moon, and many foreign satellites launched confirm this

spill the woo woo senpai

>ined lunar orbiter data before the thing was even launched
The Ranger Recon 7 & 8 were sent up in 64 and 65. He claimed he saw it in 66.

>The Soviets are political, scientific and cultural enemy admitted we went to the moon, and many foreign satellites launched confirm this

thank you user.
How many other countries have taken a picture of the Apollo flags?

NONE

I won't deny this possibility, but have you personally seen his capsure mock-up? Does there exist proof of his hoax aside from an admission?

If not, then it remains a conspiracy theory to suggest it's a hoax, since it's just a claim without proof.

this is from a unreleased document that accompanied a talk: 'Exploiting Existing Lunar Resources, the secret paper by John Brandenburg and Edgar Mitchell'

Attached: Exploiting Existing Lunar Resources, the secret paper by John Brandenburg and Edgar Mitchell.png (794x776, 187K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_program

im talking about the things he said about the lunar orbiter.

indeed you're correct.
However, the fact remains until another country takes pictures of the Apollo flags, then it remains unproven.

What do you mean?

youtu.be/xx7Lfh5SKUQ

SEETHING

you dont know how proof works

Wouldn't the flag be sunbleached and irradiated having no atmosphere protection from the sun's rays? I leave a ball cap in the car window for a day and that sob will fade in under 8 hours

He was referring to the ranger 7 & 8 probes.

he said he examined lunar orbiter data before the thing was even launched. he said this many times.

Biggest problem is how can that be Thompson outside the hatch when Thompson is in here with you.

Cool.

I googled that, it lead to this article which is pretty freaky, aliens scare the shit out of me for some reason (probably X files as a kid)
prepareforchange.net/2019/04/15/wikileaks-document-exposes-a-secret-us-base-on-the-moon/

im talking about his lunar orbiter claims, not the ranger claims.

Thanks for the info OP

this alone proves it was a hoax, if anyone can honestly look at that gif and think “yep completely legitimate” there is no hope for them.

The moon is supposedly 1/3 of earth’s gravity yet some sparklers is all it takes to achieve lift off and on earth you need a fuel tank the size of a grain silo to lift off the ground? Fucking absurd

true, but it's an invalid moot point, just because I cannot disprove a flying tea pot around jupiter doesnt mean it's there.

He talking about the photos from the Ranger 7 & 8. Not all of them are available only a handful out of the 10,000+ images.

>Fourth I’m a retard or shill or both

Go on...

yes, and the flag is probably in pieces from being photochemically broken down by the sun

Sure I do. An image is provided, at a time when photoshop didn't exist and there was no-one to step forward with physical proof showing anything in the images as props. Easiest solution? Hire someone to admit they hoaxed it. Never ask for proof of the hoax. Proof them becomes questionable, even if it's real.

The conspiracy theory now becomes whether or not it's actually a hoax. How do you prove it? You ask the hoaxer to provide his props, all of them.

If this never surfaces, then the legitimacy of the original photo gains credibility, even more so now because it becomes clear there is someone trying to delegitimize it.

You don't know how logic works.

He meant the Ranger Recon probes, not the Lunar orbiter.

It was controlled by one of the crew. It is known. This is also not of the first landing it's 3rd or 4th.

You're welcome sir, it's a pleasure to be of service to the truth.

i'm not going to argue with you but he made claims about having seen lunar orbiter scans before it had even launched.

It’s easy to restrict access to a place that is impossible to access. For example: I ban you from going to the surface of the moon.

This is the image that convinced me

The sparks flying as if no atmosphere is very hard to replicate. Most vacuum low gravity effects are.

>He meant the Ranger Recon probes, not the Lunar orbiter.
he doesn't even know what mission he worked on? think about that. he's lying. it's a matter of record.

>The moon is supposedly 1/3 of earth’s gravity

No, it's 1/6

People like you are insane, you can go on Google Earth and find the flags, footprints and relfectors. Also last time I checked Google isn’t Nasa

You're not really banning me. You're challenging me to do something you don't believe I can do.

ok, getting convoluted.
How about we just wait until another countries takes photos of the Apollo flags and artefacts and then we can go from there.

50years and waiting still.

No, he meant the Ranger Recon Probes which went up to the moon and took 10,000+ pictures. He said Lunar Orbiter BUT meant Ranger Recon Probes NOT the NASA program the US military program. Why doesn't this make sense to you?

no other country's probe can see them, including the soviet's

Is the one in the science Museum London a replica?

Well no, I think he's just mixed up the words.
He was just a grunt in the army not Colonel of R &D

>Escape velocity of The Moon = 2.38 km/s
seems pretty unlikely that this washing machine could go that fast. Even without an atmosphere to cut through

i have a phd in astronomy and i work as a selenologist. karl wolfe is a liar who cant remember his lies.

Sir, Google have NEVER sent up a LRO to take pictures of the Apollo sites.

>seems pretty unlikely that this washing machine could go that fast

Escape velocity only pertains to un-powered objects like bullets. It's not a relevant number for rockets; for example you could escape the Earth's gravity going at 1 m/s, you'd just need a retarded amount of fuel and time to do it.

Do you ever feel worried that a controversial paper or opinion might color you as a threat to the status quo and permanently end your funding / prematurely end your career?

no. no one else can do my job so i set the price and terms.

That's good so you're an educated man.
Karl Wolfe was referring to the US military Ranger Recon Probes of when he was an enlisted man and loaned to an imaging department within the US military to fix equipment, when he was show classified images of the Ranger Recon 7 & 8 which took over 10,000+ images on the moon, in which he saw a base on the moon.

It's a 'value judgement' to say he's lying, we don't know either way.

>has
Let be men and be grammatically correct

Not all PHDs have jobs, I knew a guy who worked at Sainsburys (like walmart)

I suppose now you're going to tell us (or not tell us) that you've never been contractually bound to bury findings or not reveal secrets shared with you by your employer.

Is there anything you're worried about?

what was the resolution of the ranger probes big guy? compare that resolution with his claims....

and he also lied about the LO probes.

I don't know what you mean, but NO other country or company has taken images of the Apollo sites in detail enough to prove that man has walked on the moon.

A moon hoax thread and no mention of Dave McGowan yet? You disappoint me.

Here's some food for thought:

centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

>Is there anything you're worried about?
information hazards . things getting out that damage people.