Why would the U.S. claim to have gone six times in three years if it were really a hoax?
Wouldn't one time be sufficient?
What was Apollo 13 then? An aborted mission to... be a conspiracy? What was the original intent of this mission?
Why give moon rocks out to every nation in the world if it was bullshit?
You moon landing hoax fags better have good sound logical answers or else you're all Jews.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
grahamhancock.com
en.wikipedia.org
m.youtube.com
eol.jsc.nasa.gov
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
no dude. jesus Christ
just look at the technology your phone uses everyday. that's way more fucking advanced than the stuff they needed to get to the moon, land, and get back. seriously.
for example, for the plentiful amount of you who don't know what 5G means.
5G means 50million hertz. 50 million up and down on the lightwave scale per second.
all that up and down shit is sending 1's and 0's. capiche?
actually I was wrong add two more zeros onto the 50million
its more like 50trillion 1s and 0s per second now
sorry
No you lost me. I'm talking about the moon.
U.S. sent 6 Apollo missions to the moon. SIX.
My question is simple. If the moon landings were actually a hoax, why risk it by executing the conspiracy six times in three years?
Robots may have been sent there, people probably not.
Because their contact with Kubrick was for a limited time and once the fake footage was all used they couldn’t do shit.
thats to many. something dont seem right.
what I still can't understand is why no astronaut once there on the surface didn't draw a giant penis on the sand ... in short, why else pay so much for nasa? just for the satisfaction of beating the Russians who were already focusing on the project of space orbiting station?
The moon rocks given to those countries was petrified wood. What else are they lying about?
2 more zeros is 5 billion...
5g means "5th generation".
sorry I forget. im drunk. but the idea is it sends 1s and 0s. hertz is the original measure. 5G is some astronomically high number of 1s and 0s per second
The moon landings were a slide thread to distract from the Vietnam war. When US involvement finished at the beginning of '73, there was no more need for slide threads, so the last one was Apollo 17 in December '72. Refute this. Pro-tip: you can't.
It didn't happen 6 times. You must be young. I'm GenX, no one my generation or older remembers going 6 times. This is some bullshit they only started saying in the last 10 years. They always sad we went once and couldn't go back due to expense, nothing there, etc, this is what we learned in school, it was never 6 times. I know wikipedia says that now but its total bullshit. We went once. pic related.
Here's a great talk by Richard Hoagland. Well worth the watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab8xajrHnu8
At Apollo 12, the public were already sick and tired of these moon landings. It seemed too easy. People lost interest. You've done it now, and it obviously isn't that difficult, so can you kindly fuck off with your moon shit? Hence they came up with Apollo 13, electric boogaloo, to bring back some excitement. It wasn't that easy after all! Real lives were in danger!
I doubt it, we had planes that were very advanced & we no longer can maintain & fly them because our collective IQ has dropping, I imagine something similar has happened with nasa as well.
sorry, I never trusted or liked that guy, he always come across as a disinfo shill...
what's the tl;dr
No.
>Inb4 we more advanced but didn't return
1. We didn't know the risks to health back then
2. We had vastly different infrastructure and technology.
IE: Self driving cars could have been accomplished in the 50's. Using punchcard codes, magnetic roadstrips, and transistors.
3. If it was faked, it was faked so well. Just going to the damn moon would have been easier.
It's always 6 zillions gorillions, goys!
SIX, not five!
Nah brah it means 5 GRAND on the “light wave scale”
draw me a that math problem to take the lunar lander and launch it back up to the rocket and connect to it
(((six))) times
>1. We didn't know the risks to health back then
And because 'we' did not know, there were no health risks. Ostriches are very clever.
>2. We had vastly different infrastructure and technology.
Way more advanced. Obviously
>IE: Self driving cars could have been accomplished in the 50's. Using punchcard codes, magnetic roadstrips, and transistors.
Brilliant
>3. If it was faked, it was faked so well. Just going to the damn moon would have been easier.
And that is why 'we' still cannot go 'back'. Despite NASA's 50 million budget (per day). Lol
No, you absolute mongoloid. Post this garbage on /x/ instead of Jow Forums.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Because it needed humans to drop those off. Nigger
People who believe the moon landings were fake are either fucking idiots or they need some reason to think they're "better" than other people so they make up some stupid fucking conspiracy so they feel "smarter" than other people by "knowing" something others don't while simultaneously alienating themselves from society
Lol. Yeah, that must be it. Let's see how long it takes NASA to 'return'. Pro-tip: you will not see it in your lifetime. Screencap this.
"5g" does mean 5th generation, 5Ghz refers to a wavelength used to transmit over wi-fi, 5gb/s refers to 5,000,000,000 1s and 0s being transmitted every second.
So you genuinely believe that within the next 60-75 years there will be no manned space travel to the moon? Maybe not NASA specifically, but SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, etc? Seems like a retarded thing to say
6 moon landings
6 million dead jews
66 years ol jeffrey epstein
the earth has an angle of 23.4 degrees whih is 66.6 degrees of 90 degrees
and so on and on
Yes, because going to the moon and back is hard. It cannot be done in one shot. Von Braun knew that. And when they try it for real it will not be a one shot voyage. It will be done in stages. But that needs an ISS type station in lunar orbit first.
>I don't need to get over it. Collins never saw any stars. Neither did the other two.
Yes they did, they all described seeing stars, just not during the solar corona viewing that the interviewer was asking about.
>Ok, so take another camera that is correctly configured
They did, on one of the later Apollo missions. Still pretty pointless considering the view of the stars is practically identical.
>So take a telescope instead of a moon buggy
What use is a telescope the mass of the extremely light moon buggy going to do them? Any significantly large observatory on Earth would outrank it considerably.
>What? The moon has no atmosphere. No light diffusion. The view is totally different. With your back against the sun the view is amazing.
Atmospheric diffraction does not affect the view of the stars in still photographs enough to make taking pictures with a small camera&telescope worthwhile on the moon.
>The night sky in space is the same as from earth? Really? Which is why they spend millions putting observatories on top of mountains to get rid of a lot of this pesky atmosphere. You're a shill, potato man. But the lies will be difficult to maintain if it takes another 50 years to put someone 'back' on the surface. Every decade that goes by makes it more and more ridiculous.
I'm taking about the view in terms of what is visible you stupid healthpack. Stellar parallax dictates that you would see pretty much the exact same stars in the exact same positions even if you travelled to the moon. It's such a relatively short distance compared to the distance of the stars.
>the earth has an angle of 23.4 degrees
No it doesn't. The Earth has a range of axial tilts which it goes through. You can only conclude that it is at 23.4 degrees with some generous rounding.
I guess we'll find out when they return. If they ever return. At some point even the most die-hard moon landing believers like yourself will start feeling like idiots. How much longer? 10 years? 20? Another 50?
>They destroyed the technology!
The tooling for the Saturn V was scrapped after its production run ended, like any niche manufacturing product. Same thing happened with the shuttle when it was retired. Sure, NASA COULD rebuild the Saturn V piece-for-piece by scratch were they so inclined, but it'd be extremely costly, inefficient and wouldn't pass modern safety standards.
Ask yourself this: was the Concorde supersonic plane real? If so, why was it destroyed and why can't I get a supersonic commercial flight 50 years after the launch of the Concorde?
think of the "cost" of each "trip"
lol don't be ridiculous
only 3
>>They destroyed the technology!
>The tooling for the Saturn V was scrapped after its production run ended, like any niche manufacturing product. Same thing happened with the shuttle when it was retired. Sure, NASA COULD rebuild the Saturn V piece-for-piece by scratch were they so inclined, but it'd be extremely costly, inefficient and wouldn't pass modern safety standards.
We are now 50 years later. NASA should be able to do it in a year now, if they could do it within 9 years back then.
>Ask yourself this: was the Concorde supersonic plane real? If so, why was it destroyed and why can't I get a supersonic commercial flight 50 years after the launch of the Concorde?
False comparison. If no airplane in existence today could go supersonic, and all manufacturers would claim they do not possess supersonic technology, then tbqh I would start doubting Concorde.
>We are now 50 years later. NASA should be able to do it in a year now, if they could do it within 9 years back then.
There was no real political will and no funding for another manned moon mission during those 50 years. The SLS is basically what you're asking for but due to the lack of focused political will it's basically a program to keep all the rocket scientists in the US busy so they don't defect to other countries.
>False comparison. If no airplane in existence today could go supersonic, and all manufacturers would claim they do not possess supersonic technology, then tbqh I would start doubting Concorde.
Why hasn't there been a commercially available supersonic flight in so many years?
>There was no real political will and no funding for another manned moon mission during those 50 years. The SLS is basically what you're asking for but due to the lack of focused political will it's basically a program to keep all the rocket scientists in the US busy so they don't defect to other countries.
So why do Space Shuttle? Why do ISS? Why wank on about going to Mars? NASA has been trying to go to the moon ever since they went. Lol.
>Why hasn't there been a commercially available supersonic flight in so many years?
Because it does not work commercially anymore. Tickets cost more than 10k for London - New York. People don't want to pay that sort of money to save 4 hours. Muh climate change may also have something to do with it. I don't see what it has to do with NASA.
>im drunk
no, youre just low iq
sorry, but your feelings and opinions do not equate to fact
>thinks they carried a ridiculously heavy moon buggy on the fake Lander
imagine being this bad at basic math
any idiot who believes the moon landings were a hoax belongs on /x/ or in a mental asylum.
NASA admitted the moon was inside our atmosphere recently. Sit down shill
> Hoagland
Also skeptic about some of his theories. But: The idea that NASA itself planted the meme of the faked moon landings is quite plausible.jpg.
grahamhancock.com
(search for "great coat")
One scenario would be, they did make it to the moon, but could/would not show everything on the moon (like traces of ancient civilizations etc.). So they had to fake some, but not all of the imagery. Knowing that they can't do perfect fakes (not today with CGI, let alone back then), they set up this red herring to trap researches investigating the pictures in question. At the same time, "serious scientists" would proof that the doctored footage was indeed taken on the moon (which is true). This would discredit the thin foil hats (as their assumption that the never made it to the moon is wrong).
> "serious scientists" would proof that the doctored footage was indeed taken on the moon
Should read: non-doctored footage was indeed taken on the moon
Not fake. You can see the footprints and American flag with some decent binoculars
No you can't
Stanley Kubrick made the NASA footage
Those are NASA images. And my toaster makes better pictures.
Only parts of it, see
Definitely fake. The astrologers would not have survived the Van Halen belt
>just look at the technology your phone uses everyday
Yeah, and my phone goes to the moon three times a day! Take that, conspiracytard!!!
Concorde planes from new York to Paris was available in 1998
>binoculars
Retard.
i tried shooping this one myself from the source image and it doesn't look like that
it does have a lot of compression artifacts though because it's a lossy jpeg
The Hubble telescope is a defective piece of shit.
>en.wikipedia.org
Must suck to be this wrong op fag
This is dithering from image compression.
I would need a link to the published image to check this myself
Armstrong actually TOOK all the photos on the moon, and the space suit you do see is of Aldrin. the only images of Armstrong are from the tv camera in the beginning.
Anyone have any good evidence?, i can debunk most of it since it comes down to retards not understanding cameras.
You should check out nasa fail compilations
Oh lawd, a scale model.... use context
They made a bunch of scale models to produce simulator camera feeds.
Tax payers money
The extent of my delving into the moon landing subject was to watch the videos. The official Nasa broadcast. That convinced me it was faked. No idea about the answers to your questions, it was too long ago.
I think the videos speak for themselves. No need to elaborate. Just watch them and ask yourself, is this authentic?
Its the primary evidence that it happened, and I find it the most effective debunking tool for the idea that we went to the moon.
NASA = Never A Straight Answer
you're analyzing a low quality, compressed copy of a digital scan of a print and you're surprised to see jpeg compression artifacts?
are you a fucking retard?
In the 60's the footage was never shown the videos only got broadcast in the 90's
>primary evidence
the fucking rocket launches
the technology curve from artillery shells to v2 rocks to the saturn v
moon rocks
experiments in zerog
photos
The shity tv cameras come last.
Beautifull
In the 60's people just got audio of the space walk with video of people clapping inside of NASA the pictures were not released until later.
The space walk footage of the first moonl anding was released in the 90's.
If the Nasa could really send humans to the moon, why haven't they gone back after 50 years? They could get a shit ton of tax payers money and public support if they suddenly send people to the moon again and let them live stream it/ take selfies with their smartphones
666 the number of the beast
Boomer
fake and gay
I don't see any rectangle when I edit it eol.jsc.nasa.gov
The radiation from the van Allen belt would kill humans.
The narrative is it is too expensive. That's why.
we were disrespected in chain of command priority among the men in freerange community, or were only allotted a single chance or so to succeed. our chain of command would be dominant though. I hope priorities are according continued mitigation of risk. respect for other chain of commands was reason for our lack, and yet though...our chain of command would be dominant.
we video camerad to prove availability of men to the current space oriented operations, missions, and strategy of the then prevailing chain of command in priority of rule of some standard freerange community.
Ask yourself why NASA is unable to send heavy loads without Russian engines
That didn't stop them from sending humans Six times 50 years ago. And if the human lives are a concern, they could always send drones and film the place that supposedly the first human landed on the moon with 8k footage
I do not know what to think.
What is true, is that during the original moon landing broadcasted, they showed verifiable fake footage and pretended it was real. I don't mean the walking on the moon part (but still questionable). The lead up to the landing, which was suppose to be the moon lander over the moon and landing on the moon was fake. They said it was real footage at the time.
Like anything in the first 2h and 40 mins of this video.
youtube.com
Cucked by Russian rocket
Have you ever worn pants with belt loops before? he grabbed the loop.
He kicked the roof
image stabilization rebuilding frame around movement
Yeah people spin around their center of mass
I cant watch 2min of some other fuckwit opinions interrupting the video
Kicked off the side and left hand on the ground, whats wrong here?
I wish i could be as dumb as you. Was going to skip meme flags but..
fucked with the levels in photoshop too. nothing
youtube.com
Not all "radiation" is evil, charged partials arnt too bad
they flew though twice for a very short period.
insulated in the CM
They are literally throwing away billions on Mars and all they got was just a couple of miles from the robots before breaking