What is the evidence for the moon landing?
I usually don't buy into conspiracy theories but this one has always got me, like the flag being shite, no stars in the background, we can't find the landing site, we have never gone back.
Like seriously if we could do it back in 1960 why would we never go back? Why would we not try to find resources on the moon, why would we not maybe set up a base or something.
Enlighten me Jow Forums show me your power.
Other urls found in this thread:
flickr.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
hq.nasa.gov
amazon.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>not believing in the greatest achievement the world and especially white men have completed
Okay retard
>I usually don't buy into conspiracy theories BUT
Fuck off, kikes.
>Le daily wacky conspiracy threads by JIDF
Kikes like to push irrational conspiracies like faked moon landings, le Illuminati/Masons, flat earth, absurd 9/11 theories (there were no planes), le lizard people etc. etc. to do one thing... to make people that discuss information outside of what the (((MSM))) gives us look retarded and to cover up for jews.
This is called well-poisoning and gas-lighting. Jews do this to keep normie goyim from looking into or thinking about legitimate non-MSM information too much, e.g. the jew subversion of our media and government or the exaggerations and outright lies surrounding the holohoax made for political gain.
9/11 is a good example... Israel had a big role in 9/11. How to well-poison this subject manner? Make sure any threads about 9/11 include discussion of "there were no planes", "it was CGI", "a nuke brought it down", "an energy weapon brought it down" etc. and other absurdities. This will get any normies to reject ALL non-MSM information about 9/11, including what they want to cover-up (Israel's role).
Fuck these threads and fuck JIDF.
There have been logical explanations for everything you listed.
For example, let's take the lack of stars.
Well, have you ever been in a city by night? YOu didn't see many stars did you? That's because the ambient light level is too high to actually see stars. AT the moonlanding the guys actually wanted to see where they were going, so they had light. That rendered the ambient light levels too high which makes the stars disappear.
Not going to bother typing the other bs out, just read a book for once and use your head
Landing never happened. USA had "muh ten year deadline" which would expire at the end of 1969. Kubrick delivered a "moon landing". In exchange the Illuminati funded all his money-losing films until he was Vince Fostered for going over the line with "Eyes Wide Shut". FYI lunar module only flew once on Earth and almost killed Neil Armstrong. Yet we're supposed to believe that based on one near-fatal flight they decided to pack it up and send it to the moon for 3 dudes to fly in. No. Fucking. Way. I have 200 other examples in the event any skeptics respond intelligently.
Crystals placed on the moon can be detected by boincing a laser to the moon and back. Many different organizations do this all the time. You are a dumbass.
i mean, if you agree with the mainstream story, we went there, found no useful resources, and haven't been back because its extremely expensive and dangerous, and there's no benefit.
i honestly don't really know either way, but the "basic" answers to your other questions are:
flag - have you ever seen what a flag looks like in zero gravity? me neither. they also had to make a flag that could travel to space with minimal weight so it wouldn't compromise the mission, especially considering it is technically meaningless and adds nothing objective to the mission.
stars - the camera was too weak to pick up the light from the stars especially with the relatively bright moon surface taking up most of the frame.
Let me ask you a question fucktard, what good would it do to you or humanity to find out the moon landings were fake. No one uses the moon landings as any sort of pretext or casus belli for anything of substance. You can't really make a meaningful point by knowing if it happened or not. All you will be able to say is, "Oh well guys, that one thing that the world watched on television for one day, celebrated for a year, and then became taken for granted due to shit education is fake!" Why don't you worry about some real things that will give you results? So maybe it was faked, boo hoo, what are you going to do about it. Its not like its the holocaust or something
If I go out in the middle of nowhere, where I can see the actual milkyway and then put up a light to take pictures I can still see the stars. There's not a city on the fucking moon, there's not that much light.
Also NASA let Kubrick have one of their ultra fast lenses in exchange, which he used to shoot the candlelight scenes Barry Lyndon.
I suppose it wouldn't change much anything, but it's supposedly one of humanity's greatest achievements, but I think it's horseshit.
Yes but the astronauts brought Tang(TM) and six gorillion watts of candle power. It's true I read about it in the New York Times and Washington Post.
OK faggot I challenge you, go out into bumfuck nowhere and put up some big fucking floodlights so you can see as if it were bright daylight. Take a pic of the sky.
You don't care about logic or evidence, you just want it to be true cause you are biased
Supposedly 500 video cassettes of the "moon shot" have been lost. Oy vey!
Stick to orchestral music Klaus. You're out of your depth on this topic.
>memeflag
go on sodomising little kids elsewhere
We didn't really search for resources, we supposedly picked up some rocks and that's it. We do have space stations, we have seen flags and fabrics in those and they don't look like the one on the moon. I'm sure they could have done the math for a flag and pole weight 2-3 pounds, not to mention the whole thing is about beating the soviets, planting a flag on the moon was essential to the mission.
Maybe I'm wrong on this one but we can see stars when the moon is out. If the moon's ambient reflected light was bright enough to blot out the stars there why wouldn't it from earth as well?
look at what you fucking posted
sounds like some shit you'd come up with on acid
a lot easier to put crystals on the moon than to land on it. We can send a satellite to the moons of Jupiter, to Pluto and other places, sending inorganic things that can withstand extremely rough landing is way different than sending fragile humans.
Why can't we see the landings? Why is that we have to use NASA's equipment, rely on NASA to tell us that they landed? That's horseshit.
NASA helped make a movie where they fake a Mars landing.
it is horseshit, have you seen the satellites those retards make? it's and arts and crafts shit with gold foil all over it
it would supposedly melt after it gets out of our atmosphere if it even was real
best answer. who benefits from a fake moon landing? if it was about beating the soviets why didn't they prove it was fake? moon landing hoaxers and flat earthers are the dumbest conspiracy theorists. they spend all their energy on the least consequential and easiest to disprove conspiracies.
The greatest achievement of the world is the Autobahn where you can legally drive 330km/h in your German designed and made Lamborghini and all cops say is “good run”.
I'll suck your cock if you can prove it's a ball whipping through space a million miles an hour
it was faked to do more than flex on russia
I've heard one conspiracy theory that says the Flat Earth Society is a NASA front to make their skeptics look retarded.
Thankyou bro. Its disinfo. The truth is that the CMB shows Earth is the center of the universe with regards to temperature and density makeup. I can’t suggest this to anyone without them thinking I was a flat earther. One of the directors at the European Space Agency was talking about how strange it is that these cosmic features are aligned with Earth and said he was “explicitly told not to say anything about God which I’ve just violated.” We have proof of God and it has been swept under the rug by the atheists. Planck was in 2013, strange how flat Earth shows up in 2015
Fuck you, Schluchtenscheißer.
I'm just up late at night with nothing better to do and it's a question that has always nagged me, not really expending any real energy tho my man lmao.
supposedly they taped over the mission metadata. pretty convenient if anyone other than nasa ever wanted to analyze it.
It's just not the same with a PM that has a clitoris
The light source is the sun you dumbass, so many times more stronger than city light. If they had landed on the dark side of the moon they would have seen stars.
She doesn't.
This was accomplished without the need of a manned mission as well.
The only thing you proven here is that you are a complete moron
Google the axis of evil. Google the seeds of structure. All the universe originated from here. God is real. We are the purpose of creation
all these fucking posts and not a single sauce on OP pic related.
what the fuck.
>why would we never go back
we've landed men on the moon 5 times after apollo 11 the last being in 1972.
>we can't find the landing site
there are plenty of pictures you can easily find from satellite images of multiple landing sites.
>why would we not maybe set up a base or something
private companies are already working on mining rare resources. There just isn't an economically sound way of getting it back to Earth.
Stfu owen and stay off our board you faggot ass chris benoit boomer
There are thousands of photos and hundreds of hours of film footage.
Photos:
flickr.com
List of Apollo documentaries:
For All Mankind
In the Shadow of the Moon
Last Man on the Moon
Mission Control: Unsung Heroes of Apollo
Moon Machines
When We Left Earth (episodes 3 and 4)
Look at the way dust falls at 1:20
There is no way it could be on earth
youtube.com
Most of the conspiracy videos on youtube are from the 90s vhs tapes, and what they claim as "evidence" of faked moon landings are just artifacts from bad quality footage.
hey chief if we're whipping through space a million miles an hour on a ball and rotating why is our night sky the same for the whole history we can date back to?
I've heard one conspiracy theory that says the conspiracy theorist says that flat earthers is a cover up by nasa to make people who believe in stupid shit doesn't look as retarded.
youtube.com
The sun moves in correlation to the earth, so your qeustion doesn' make any sense.
nice meme flag jew fag
Disney Presents: NASA on Thin Ice | Buzz Aldrin and the Masonic Moon
youtube.com
Yes, google it and i will guarantee that you will find bullshit that fits with your theory.
Who cares if it was or not to fake landing. Does that thing affect your life? No, right? Focus on the real current problems please. USA is being taken by fucking sjw, globalists and illegal immigrants.
oh let me dumb it down
why is the night sky the same after thousands of years if space is expanding
> Landing never happened.
Wrong.
> USA had "muh ten year deadline" which would expire at the end of 1969.
So, logically when was Kubrick hired to shot a fake? Hint: 2001 premiered in mid 1968.
> Kubrick delivered a "moon landing".
Yes.
> In exchange the Illuminati funded all his money-losing films until he was Vince Fostered for going over the line with "Eyes Wide Shut".
Possible.
> FYI lunar module only flew once on Earth and almost killed Neil Armstrong.
Wrong, LM never flew on Earth because it had not enough thrust to lift itself in full Earth gravity. Neil crashed a vehicle which was meant to simulate a LM in Earth conditions.
> Yet we're supposed to believe that based on one near-fatal flight they decided to pack it up and send it to the moon
LM was tested during Apollo 9 and 10. Which both flew after 2001 premiered. Are you starting to see the pattern here?
> for 3 dudes to fly in.
LM took 2 people.
> I have 200 other examples in the event any skeptics respond intelligently.
You're getting basic facts wrong (LM crew size, LM thrust, Apollo 9&10, what Neil crashed) and you want to talk conspiracy?
Here's a redpill, hoaxing makes sense considering the state of the Apollo program in 1967, which is when Kubrick most likely filmed his fake, using shooting of 2001 as a cover.
But by the end of 1968 it was obvious that NASA will deliver.
Pic related.
Your question still doesn't make sense, why wouldn't it be?Or are you trying to say that the starry sky is exactly the same as it was thousands of years ago? Then newsflash to you, it does change continously and is not the same as it was thousands of years ago. Stars dies and gets born all the time and the distance is so great that the stars you see today could already be dead by now. The distances in space is so vast that it is impossible for our brains to compute.
You're a fucking moron, the darkside is constantly facing away from the Earth, meaning it faces the Sun at some point you absolute tool.
Not an actual argument.
Interesting
Pic related cause they're hiding the truth from us, like the sticky note below her tits, she is unaware of the truth.
Man landing on moon missions?
Satellites owned by NASA, ofc they will back them up.
That last point is at least decent.
Ok, this one usually gets my posts deleted at Bad Astronomy.
According to the Apollo 11 specifications, the rockets are throttleable down to 1000 pounds thrust. According to the transcripts, the engine was shut down after landing. Why is there no displaced moon dust under the lander? I mean, the weight of a 150 pound man makes clear and deep marks in the moon dust. Why doesn't a 1000 pound rocket?
You can experiment on this yourself, by holding a 1000 pound rocket half a meter over some powdery dust and see what happens.
> no stars in the background
Ahem.
hq.nasa.gov
retard
if that's the case why do we still see the same constellations if the stars are dying and moving
surely at least one would be non existent at this point, I haven't seen anything about light dying in the sky since pluto got dim
you know the story is that we were made from an explosion and we orbit the sun as it shoot through space leaving a spiral trail behind it.. right? if that's the case our sky should be wildly different nearly every single night
Haha, you're right, i just woke up so my brain was not doing what it's supposed to. However, if the sun falls on the surface of the moon, then the reflections would overpower the light from the stars just like it does on earth minus the atmosphere.
yea the dust just looks like it was slowed down, like their jumping, and was being blown. It looked like it was being flung by a fan or something, the guys look like they're hoping with wires attached and again, slowed down.
> area under the engine is different color
> no displaced dust
> Ok, this one usually gets my posts deleted at Bad Astronomy.
It's been called cosmoquest for years now.
Haven't been there for years, either. Want to try to explain my question?
the moon landing is a good science fiction movie. 2 things you need to watch to see how much of a laughable FRAUD it really is..
1) apollo 11 press conference on youtube (guilt, shame, hesitation, etc.. on their faces when answering basic questions. it's fucking laughable!!!)
2) Room 237
debatable, because if you're in the middle of nowhere (to the point that you can see the milky way) and the moon is out you can still see stars around. Why wouldn't the reflected light overpower the stars then?
>Like seriously if we could do it back in 1960 why would we never go back? Why would we not try to find resources on the moon, why would we not maybe set up a base or something.
Literally no need. There is nothing of value there. No special minerals, nothing. You're a sitting duck for micro objects without an atmosphere. Anything you would want to do on the moon (basing for spacecraft, communications relays, etc.), you can do in low earth orbit for much cheaper.
This part was a good question.
I mean to be fair you won't see all the stars but you can still see a whole lot more than in the city.
How can you do that experiment in earths gravity?
Why does no one talk about how the jews are implanting the idea of transexualization into culture just so they can rake in millions of dollars on genital reconstruction surgeries. Tranny's are a big pharma jew conspirasy to keep "Anxiety" pills in business.
There is no dark side of the moon. There's a far side. All areas of the moon receive more or less the same amount of sun. When it's new moon, the far side is full.
holy shit
actual keyboard warrior
how much man?
houlry? by post? I'm curious
no one is this dumb for free
Obviously it wouldn't be exactly the same, but one would expect to see some sort of displacement. That's just going by the assumption that physics work on the moon too. I mean, the transcripts mention how the dust cloud from the rocket starts at several hundred meters up. Can you explain why there wouldn't be at least some cratering in the dust there?
Do you have link for the DVD of the 16mm?
Darkside of the moon is a common phrase to mean the side never facing us, and thus it is dark to us, from out perspective so to speak.
It's not literal.
>>The lifespan of a star is vast, the amount of stars is vast and the extremely tiny portion of stars that we see with our naked eye is. We talk about millions of years of travel just for the light to be visual to us. If a star died a million years ago and it's 1 million lightyears away, then only now you would be able to confirm it's dead.
How hard is it to put company name into Google? Assuming you want Apollo 11, here:
amazon.com
Pic unrelated before someone posts
> muh van allen belts
> muh radiation
just lol youtube.com
I know, but it's still wrong. More or less any person who's into astronomy will correct you if you call it the dark side.
It's an entirely different thing to be on the moon than to observe it from a distance. Just look at the difference between looking at the stars in the middle of a desert compared to a large city full of night lights.
>like the flag being shite
What? The flag is fine.
>no stars in the background
Stars aren’t visible in the day, dumbass, and you’d need long exposure to see them anyway.
>we can't find the landing site
Yes we can. It’s been photographed multiple times and is easy to obtain the coordinates of by spending five seconds on google.
>we have never gone back.
Wrong. We went a total of six times. There is no reason to go again.
I was talking about as if you were standing on the surface of the moon. The lights from a city indeed does make the starry sky a lot dimmer.
>Why would we never go back?
We did, but with rovers and satellites. Why would we send humans back for a few hours when you can send a robot that will stay there indefinitely?
>Why can't you see stars?
Because the camera can't record both the blindingly bright sunlit surface of the moon and the very dim stars at the same time.
More evidence:
>moon rock samples brought back
>astronauts put a device on the moon that reflects laser back to Earth
>a satellite in orbit around the moon photographed the landing site, including the lander, vehicles, tire tracks and the flag
>the videos and pictures taken by the astronauts
>greatest kike gibs ploy
>lmao we went moon give funding
>what are van allen belts?
It's so simple. Just go there, land, take off, and come back. Why would that be fake?
>Want to try to explain my question?
What's to explain, can't you see the color change?
>what are van allen belts?
Something which allowed kikes to make going to the moon illegal. See pic in .
>there were no planes tho
or at least not the ones in the B movie CGI scenes they released to the press.
Just look at the "original" footage, it's so obviously BS
>What's to explain, can't you see the color change?
I'm not asking why there's no scorching in the dust. I'm asking why doesn't a 1000 pound rocket displace moon dust? Well, specifically, it does displace moon dust at 200 meters height as we know from the transcripts. But why doesn't it displace moon dust at 0.5 meters height.
>view of full lunar disc during return trip
>why call it a disc
looks like a fucking rocket just launched off that bitch to me
fpbp
Here is the complete lander cam footage, watch 1 minute from this timestamp: youtu.be
Yes, I've seen that. It doesn't answer my question.
> clearly different color under the lander
> footage of rocket displacing dust
> claims no displaced dust
WTF?
I don't "claim" there's no displaced dust. There's clearly no displaced dust. Why doesn't a 1000 pound rocket create a crater in the moon dust, when a man in a low-G environment creates deep footprints right beside it? Will you persist in just calling me stupid, or will you try to answer my question?
never bothered to notice we always put our flag on everything, but here, we gotta write it out
I swear most of these were actual movie props
What is that brown scar under the lander?
Here, saturation and contrast enhanced.
I'm not asking about whether the moon dust is brown or not. I don't think I can be much clearer about what I'm asking here. Do you have reading comprehension difficulties or are you being dishonest?
>Why doesn't a 1000 pound rocket create a crater in the moon dust,
Because 4 legs don't create craters either.
But men and their footprints do? Explain to me the physics of it. Is it magic?