>>40546592 (OP)

>>40546597
Helmet reflection

It might even be a fucking horse

100% horse

>>40546592 (OP)
people who spread this just make questioning sound retarded fyi

Is there something really scary up there?

>>40546592 (OP)
Yeah fucking they would have cunts teleporting up their in full-on astral

But the rocketship, dunno

>>40546592 (OP)
Only onions retards believe in american moon landing.

>>40546592 (OP)
tell me more

>>40546778
https://youtu.be/I0k04aH71UA

>>40546592 (OP)
Ahh, a classic.

https://youtu.be/yDyJe1nmSOM

>>40546592 (OP)
Idk how they manually landed the lunar lander in a place with no atmosphere and 1/6th earths gravity on the first try without any modern avionics or radar and before computerized flight simulators and shit, after days of flying in something the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. I think Russia tried like a dozen times and failed every time and they supposedly even had better engineering at the time. I think they never attempted to do a manned mission because there was like a 95% chance they would’ve all died.

>>40547786
>Idk how
Because they are better than you. You sound like someone who thinks it must have been demons and aliens that built things in the past because you cant possibly understand the skill of competent people.
>I think Russia tried like a dozen times
>I think they never attempted
yep. That's the level of intellect I expect from someone who thinks less gravity and no atmosphere would somehow make things harder.

of course it never happened
after all moon is plasma

>>40547916
Reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be one of your strengths.

When a group of people accomplishes the greatest technical feat in human history (6 times), it's only natural to destroy all the telemetry data, and original film, and abandon/destroy all the technology so that the feat can't be achieved again.

60 years and we haven't been able to go "back". lol Americans are so fucking stupid.

>>40547786
they had radar though

>>40547786
>manually landed
they didnt really. there was a completely manual setting for the guidance computer but it was never used. instead, what the commander chose to do on each mission was to use the 'semi-manual' mode which while still following the automated landing cycle did allow the landing site to be moved so as to avoid any small features such as boulders, smaller craters etc which could not be factored into the fairly basic terrain model used.
>on the first try
Apollo 9 flew a LM in LEO for several hours to test handling, systems and rendezvous and docking. Apollo 10 flew to within 50k feet of the lunar surface in a LM. All the LM crew had done a lot of training on the various LM simulation equipment including the famous jet powered 'flying bedstead'. Armstrong has made dozens of successful flights and landings on that craft before a fuel gauge malfunction lead to crash.
>Russia tried like a dozen times and failed every time and they supposedly even had better engineering at the time
they suffered a couple crew loses during landing from LEO and paused all manned flight for a long time, several years in fact. They made quite a few successful automated flights in LEO and were just getting back into manned flight by the time Apollo 11 was landing on the moon. THeir heavy lift rocket, the N1, just kept blowing up shortly after the liftoff, eventually detonating on the pad and destroying the site and killing ground crew etc.
Those two important delays in their program are what prevented them from making manned lunar flights and in the end they shut it down due to cost issues and the (self inflicted) loss of their lead engineer.
>without any modern avionics or radar
they had a whole sequence of landing programs which were based on models developed using previous lunar orbiter data and the known physics of the LM. The LM also had 2 independent radar systems - one a ground altimeter radar and one constantly tracking the orbiting command module for rendezvous.

>>40548102
>all the telemetry data
not all by any means, but i have to wonder what reams of battery voltage, tank pressure and temperature data would mean to you. why wouldn't you just say it was faked??
>original footage
only from Apollo 11, and only in slightly higher resolution that we have. it was in a strange format and they didn't expect to be able to extract it in any better quality. it is a very unfortunate thing though, no doubt. But what about all the better footage from the other landings? what about all that?
>abandon the tech
well, thats what happens when nobody want to pay for it to keep being made and maintained. if nobody makes anything, especially very unique small production run things like the apollo stack, for 50-60 years, who remember how to do it? and why would anyone want to remake stuff from the 60s anyway? it was purpose built for short duration mission of only 3 guys and every single part of the entire vehicle was single use only.
any missions to the moon or beyond will have much different goals than Apollo and needs different vehicles to do it.

>>40548182
Ok, glowie.

>>40548182
>and why would anyone want to remake stuff from the 60s anyway?
lol Because it worked. The suits used to walk on the surface of the moon, for example. They had to be marvels of technology. To keep a human body alive and functional in the lunar extremes of temperature (200 F to -200 F). Would it really be so hard to preserved the design? Much better to reinvent the wheel 60 years later.

First powered flight -- 1903. 60 years later jet airliners, bombers, fighters are everywhere and commercial jet travel is routine.

First man on moon -- 1969. 60 years later no human has traveled further than low earth orbit.

This is not the way technology works. Period.

I highly recommend Dave McGowan's Wagging The Moondoggie. It's largely argument from incredulity so it doesn't conclusively prove anything but it's hilarious and sheds light on many hinkey things wrong with the official account of the Apollo program.

>>40546603
>>40546624
Maybe they sent a horse to the moon?

>>40548444
>lol Because it worked.
it worked for the mission plan, which back then was very narrow and limited. the US in particular is not interested in doing a repeat of those short, small crew, very basic missions. the chinese and indians might, perhaps some private tourist stuff, but thats it.
Look at the plans NASA has been working towards for the next step in lunar exploration - orbiting lunar stations, reusable starship landing variants placing 100 tons on the surface, over and over again.

You tell me why nasa would want to build up the old Apollo stack. whats the point?

> lunar extremes of temperature (200 F to -200 F).
extreme which were never encountered during those missions, just keep that in mind. you can look up the measured temps of equipment that was placed on the surface during their landings, and the range is something like -20c up to about 100c. Do you really think materials can't stand that range?
>Would it really be so hard to preserved the design?
well they did. the suit used for all ISS EVA activity is very closely related to the Apollo A7-L suit. thats one part of the equipment which has been developed and grew out of Apollo.
>This is not the way technology works. Period.
it kind of is if it's not developed or even kept in production. No one has wanted a manned lunar lander so no one has designed a built one. thats pretty simple to understand. So is not bothering to try making a carbon copy of what is now a craft made out of old materials, engineering processes and onboard equipment.

>>40548481
>many hinkey things wrong
any good examples?

>>40548495
Nobody is advocating making "a carbon copy" of anything you disingenuous dickhead. The point you're trying to avoid is that when technological breakthroughs are made, they are built upon and advanced. Look at every single step of technology from computers to molecular biology... Manned space flight seems to be the only example of technology regressing. The United States purportedly landed men on the moon six times in the late 60s and early 70s but the best anyone on earth can do 6 decades later is low earth orbit. It's nonsense. They didn't do it.

Do you think the suits for these missions would have to be designed to withstand known extremes or just the temp extremes most likely to be encountered if everything went perfectly according to plan? lol

You're an idiot.

>>40548444
>60 years later no human has traveled further than low earth orbit.
and that has been almost entirely a political decision, since until recently its only state actors which could afford to develop a space program. But recently we've see a privately funded orbital flight (using spaceX equipment) that has been i think the highest altitude flight since Apollo ended. And thats using a manned capsule which has only been in operation since 2020, so it would appear that things are turning in a better direction for space flight in general after several decades of going no higher than the ISS.

>>40548584
>they are built upon and advanced.
so who was funding the advancement of manned lunar landings? No one, thats who. The US ws pretty much the only country capable of affording it between the end of the Apollo program and the early 2000s. Just look at the state of things between those times - china and russia mired in commie bullshit, cold wars etc. Europe never seemed to want a manned space program and preferred welfare statism. who else was there?
>Manned space flight seems to be the only example of technology regressing.
Apollo (plus mercury and gemini) was an incredibly expensive program which had the political and economic backing of the US during probably its strongest years. is it really so surprising that no one else has been able to even think about trying it again until recently?

>Do you think the suits for these missions would have to be designed to withstand known extremes
they probably were and i really don see any reason why they couldn't operate properly. you certainly haven't provided any reason or evidence other than your personal incredulity.

>>40547786
>before computerized flight simulators and shit,
Well that's because it wasn't before computerized flight simulators and shit as you so eloquently put it

This thread glows

>>40548711
nah, this thread just does what moonhoax thread always do - show that those who want to think it was faked dont know what they are talking about and can't possibly accept rational explanations.

>>40548584
>implying modern spacecraft still use ferrite core memory and 8 bit guidance computers

Anon the sheer amount of capital required to do anything like that makes it literally pointless to do so. The US government were the only ones who could afford to dump such substantial amounts of cash into a project with literally zero return on investment and their pissing contest with the USSR ended in 1992. Satellites are currently the only profitable venture in space, so why exactly would they do anything else?

>>40548584
>Manned space flight seems to be the only example of technology regressing.
It has not regressed at all, on the contrary it has made enormous leaps forward. How can you be this completely ignorant?
>You're an idiot.
Ah, I see. People who have very low intelligence and zero knowledge about a subject they angrily sperg about try to desperately convince themselves they are smart, and everyone else is the dumb one.

>>40548659
Ok, glowie.

>>40548754
>on the contrary it has made enormous leaps forward.

What "enormous leaps forward" surpass men walking on the moon in 1969?

>>40548721
>those who want to think it was faked dont know what they are talking about and can't possibly accept rational explanations.

let me guess...you know it happened because you saw it on TV and your uncle worked for the Saturn project...

So smaht...

>>40548822
>reusable booster stages
>autonomous landings
>safety and success rates
>aerospace materials & metallurgy

saging this stupid fucking thread

>>40548822
reusable 7 man spacecraft and rockets for one. if the starship HLS ever arrives then that will be huge advance over the venerable old LM.

i find the whole argument about not having kept on developing the technology of lunar landers a sign that it was all fake very very strange. how can someone ignore the obvious fact that there was simply no demand and funding for such a thing?

There was no attempt at seriously designing a lunar lander until the US government started making large contracts available for the company that could come up with one, and that didn't happen until about 1961-2. Then there were quite a few, the eventual winner of the contract being Grumman, who then spent 7-8 years and a couple billion dollars designing and making it.

>>40548835
and you know it didn't because you watched some youtube videos, without learning anything at all about the actual program itself?

>>40548444
>To keep a human body alive and functional in the lunar extremes of temperature (200 F to -200 F).
This anon doesn't know about work boots

>>40548856
A space shuttle that never went higher than low earth orbit...and was then scrapped? Ok...lol

Compared to every other example of technology in human history, a natural progression would have looked something like manned low earth orbit, sustained manned low earth orbit (you are here), unmanned moon landing (you are here), manned moon landing (claimed 60 years ago), sustained moon exploration, manned moon base, unmanned missions to other planets launched from moon, manned missions to other planets...

In 60 years from the claimed manned moon landing, despite exponential progress in computing, power storage, materials science etc. etc., ....we haven't progressed beyond low earth orbit.

"Space is hard" as Elon famously said. It wasn't that hard 60 years ago. We were so good at it 60 years ago, Americans got bored of watching astronauts drive moon buggies around up there on TV. Why is it so hard now? Why is lunar dust such an insurmountable challenge now? Why all the concern with the van Allen belts? Micrometeorites? None of this was an issue 60 years ago?

Why is the world having such a hard time standing on the shoulders of the giants of 60 years ago?

>>40548984
Yup. They had good ol murican made work boots. Of course they walked on the moon. Good stuff.

>>40549060
yeah, the shuttle wasn't a good way to go. it was pretty cool for what it was and is still the only vehicle that ever was able to bring satellites back down safely (so far), but it was very very expensive. They just wanted a reusable space plane so they got one. Lots of people think they should have stayed with Apollo and the follow on program which had some very exciting ideas lined up.
>manned low earth orbit, sustained manned low earth orbit (you are here), unmanned moon landing (you are here), manned moon landing (claimed 60 years ago),
thats how it worked out....only the political support was not there for continued lunar programs. its a pity. but it doesn't mean anything was faked. bad decisions happen all the time.

>Why is it so hard now?
cost and competency, plus increased difficulty levels. look at how much money and man power was applied to making apollo work. it was incredible.
>Why all the concern with the van Allen belts?
what concern? i hope you're not going to start going on about the one very short interview made before Orion flew any test missions.
>Micrometeorites? None of this was an issue 60 years ago?
what about them? yes of course they were an issue, and mitigation was built into the antire stack and the suits.

>>40549083
you must have to try really hard to avoid the point being made, which was simply about the ability of simple inexpensive materials to function in extreme conditions.

>>40549098
>cost and competency, plus increased difficulty levels. look at how much money and man power was applied to making apollo work. it was incredible.
>muh difficulty level.
Bro, this isn't a videogame.
Also, on argument I couldn't found anywhere is how and why astronauts survived exposed to unfiltered gamma radiation from the sun.

>>40549098
>>Why is it so hard now?
>cost and competency,

So we're less competent 60 years later?

If manned flight on earth progressed in the same manner as manned space flight, Lindbergh would have flown from New York to Paris, and then for the next 60 years, we would have no end of difficulty flying from Chicago to Peoria, or Albany to Buffalo. Good thing we had better political will around earth flight.

Then again .... Lindbergh really did fly from New York to Paris.

>>40549153
>this isn't a videogame.
i'll explain what i meant then, though ive already dont so itt. Look at what spacex is trying to create in starship. Do you know about it, and what they want to do with it? Now, compare that to the saturn V and the apollo stack.

do you see the difference yet, and why the latter is more complicated to make that the former?
>gamma
i haven't seen you even attempt to quantity the radiation environment that they encountered. start there and then you can push your 'radiation would kill them instantly' line or argumentation.

>>40549178
>So we're less competent 60 years later?
the chinese, indians etc are less competent than the US was back then (i think) and i'd also say that in some respects nasa is too. its much more of a stodgy bureaucratic institution that it was back then. they are struggling to even get the reentry heat shielding for Orion to work properly, hence the long delay since its last flight.

>>40549179
>why the latter is more complicated to make that the former?
the other way around. my mistake. starship is more complicated in what it needs to be able to do and how many times it is intended to do it. expendable stuff is always going to be easier to make work.

>>40549179
Ok, glowie. Your are talking if you were tha NASA CEO, disregarding cosmic radiation, extreme low temperatures, the problem with air compression without gravity and the most obvious fact that no manned missions would be acomplished to the moon because, there's someone who claims, we can't do X because Y so no more moon. A shame and a waste of resources given the fact they allegedly did it with less resources. Also, the more studies they aproved and publish for the general public more the contradiction is evident.

>>40549229
>disregarding cosmic radiation
im not. you're just not doing anything to quantify the problem because you dont know anything about it. you just heard some youtuber tell you its a deadly thing which means the moon landings were faked.
>temperatures
im happy to talk about that. if posted something about boots, which you ignored. how do you think temperature works in a vacuum? shall we start there? how about thinking about where the heat would come from, or about how the cold would be an issue? How are those issues solvable?
>air compression without gravity
please explain this one to me.
>we can't do X because Y so no more moon
not really sure what you mean. ive just been trying to get you to understand that there hasn't been a manned lunar lander made since the late 1960s because no one wanted to pay for it. its really that simple.
> allegedly did it with less resources
on the contrary, the resources devoted to the manned space program during the 1960s in the US is pretty much without comparison in all history.
>the contradiction is evident.
what studies exactly? what contradiction?

>>40548862
Don't take the bait desu

>>40549060
>It wasn't that hard 60 years ago.
Yes it was. A lot harder. You seriously have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have literally zero knowledge about science and technology.

>>40546592 (OP)
The fact is that 6 or so decades people were on the moon and today is imposible somehow.

>>40549338
It's not impossible today, what are you talking about?

>>40549305
i cant help it!

>>40549309
>Yes it was. A lot harder. You seriously have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You have literally zero knowledge about science and technology.

Jesus Christ...are you really this spergy? Do you really not understand the argument because sarcasm was used? lol

And...I actually know quite a bit about science. Seethe more.

>>40549348
>It's not impossible today, what are you talking about?

Yeah. The glowie here was just on the moon playing golf and doing rooster tails with his dune buggy. It was 60 years ago and nobody has been out of low orbit since because of politics and whatnot but it's TOTALLY possible. You just don't know anything about science and technology like he does.

>>40549379
what is it that you can't grasp about the lack of consistent political will to fund such programs? things are only moving towards flights more interesting than LEO because of private companies picking up the slack from government, which has changed its mind on space programs every time the administration changes (in the US). China is building towards a lunar program. thats about it. Europe doesn't care and india probably shouldn't try it.

just because things dont happen doesn't mean its impossible. why is it impossible? is this the silly 'VAB are impossible to pass' meme talking?

>>40549413
In this entire thread, I never said anything was impossible. What the fuck is wrong with you? What are you talking about? Stop (you)ing me you fucking credulous sperg until you learn how to talk to human beings.

>>40549453
the post i just replied to had you say this;
>but it's TOTALLY possible
implying you think its not possible. that sounds a lot like what many moonhoaxies have to say about it being impossible. if you dont want to get included with that group of dummies that dont say dumb things.

>>40549379
What exactly about it is impossible? Be specific. Even you could make your own moon rocket if you had a couple of billion and an IQ of above 80.

>>40549471
>the post i just replied to had you say this;
>>but it's TOTALLY possible
>implying you think its not possible. that sounds a lot like what many moonhoaxies have to say about it being impossible. if you dont want to get included with that group of dummies that dont say dumb things.

This is dunning-kruger in real time. Holy shit.

I never said a moon landing was impossible. I said it wasn't done in 1969. Can you understand the difference?

I've even said that arguments from incredulity -- which is really the only kind of argument I've made here -- don't prove anything conclusively one way or the other.

Here's my position: does the fact that we haven't been "back" to the moon the 6 decades since we first claimed to have done it flawlessly 6 times prove that we didn't actually do it? Nope. But it sure as hell doesn't do much to support any argument that we did.

There are way too many legitimate questions with, and inconsistencies around the official account for an intelligent person to accept as fact that Americans landed on the moon six times without any mishaps (even 13 had no fatalities) in 1969-197?

You claiming to know more about the programs doesn't prove anything. Your bullshit about political will is misinformed and frankly, pathetic.

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. If you can demonstrate artifacts on the moon that prove HUMANS landed there even once in 1969, my hypothesis is falsified. Until then, I remain skeptical. You and Neil degrasse Tyson can stroke each other about reflectors all you want. Knock yourselves out.

Now, I'm done wasting my time with this and with you.

>>40546592 (OP)
>muh face moon landing
Literal communist propaganda

>>40549653
>Literal communist propaganda
For sure. It was on TV, brah.

>>40549652
what could be shown to you that you would not instantly dismiss as fake?

Why do you avoid all and any discussion of the many objects made regarding the technology used to carry out the landings?

Is the only thing that confuses you the fact that another manned lunar program hasn't been done since? Thats the pathetic thing here...that you'd not be able to understand all the things that have to be in place to pull it off.

>>40549494
You cannot get past the firmament

>>40549820
>what could be shown to you that you would not instantly dismiss as fake?

1) Human waste (poop) that could be chemically verified/dated to be associated with the Apollo missions.

2) material artifacts that could be proven and chemically dated to have been associated with the missions.

Your second question is stupid. Those things don't prove that humans landed on the moon anymore than evidence of having made a boat proves that yo sailed it around the world.

I don't need the moon landing to be true. That's why skepticism in view of all the hinky facts seems reasonable to me. You seem to need it to be true. So much so that you'll spend lots of effort obfuscating legitimate questions about it. That seems pathetic toe but you do you, boo. I don't really give a shit.

>>40550154
Skepticism means being careful about claims and checking them against facts. You are not doing anything of the sort. You are blindly parroting cultist beliefs without having the slightest understanding of the subject you are talking about. Literally every direct and indirect piece of evidence related to the Moon landing points to it happening. Meanwhile, hoaxer cultists have literally nothing. Not a single fact. Nothing that stands up even high school math and physics. Only cultist beliefs.

>>40546592 (OP)
No shit. You can clearly tell that there's a fucking old beat-up lawn chair. Only the supremely brainwashed and retarded still believe that anyone landed on the moon.

The moon is a plasma phenomenon. Its a light. There is _nothing_ to land on.

>>40550154
>you'll spend lots of effort obfuscating legitimate questions about it.
ive done nothing of the sort.

>human waste
how wold that prove anything? im not sure if that which was brought back for medical research purposes was kept this long.
>material artifacts
how about 800lbs of moon rock samples? thousands of samples have been analyzed by geologists around the world. not one has ever said they are fake, not even when compared to (very small amounts of) samples collected by russia and china. What else and its 'chemically dated' evidence can you think of?

>>40550541
>You can clearly tell that there's a fucking old beat-up lawn chair
no you can't. you can see that its a lightweight chair constructed along a similar pattern to other lightweight chairs. thats about it.
>plasma
yeah ok. guess you're happy to accept a few random youtube videos of uncertain source to base your belief on.

>>40550654
And you're happy to base your beliefs on government propaganda, you fucking nigger.

I'd rather listen to a YouTube documentary that someone put time and effort into versus accepting the state's version of the truth.

>>40546592 (OP)
Time to get the thread ignored
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlIF0P9j0cM
UFOs are fucking everywhere, they know this, they don't want you to see this or discuss it. The thread will now die

>>40550711
then you've allowed reasonable skepticism to degenerate into being a retarded contrarian immune to reason and evidence. Its not a good place to be because you've made it so that you can't evaluate the claims of anyone properly.

>mid-late 90s
>FOX airs 1hr special about how the moon landing is fake
how was this okayed back then -- or was it the whole "i gotta reveal muh sins to the public so i can join the super secret elite club!"

>>40550711
>government propaganda
That's a funny way of saying "solid evidence from numerous sources". If it were government propaganda, don't you think millions of people around the world far smarter and more educated than you would have figured it out long ago? Especially the soviets who would have loved to expose it as a fraud.

>>40550643
>how wold that prove anything? im not sure if that which was brought back for medical research purposes was kept this long.
You dumb fuck. I'm talking about samples from the moon which they purportedly left there. You should know that, Sheldon.

>>40550337
>You are blindly parroting cultist beliefs without having the slightest understanding of the subject you are talking about

Just not so, fanboi. In fact, there are no top notch physicists that I know of who believe that the moon landing happened. Just midwit Big Bang fans who know nothing.

>>40550643
>how about 800lbs of moon rock samples? thousands of samples have been analyzed by geologists around the world. not one has ever said they are fake, not even when compared to (very small amounts of) samples collected by russia and china. What else and its 'chemically dated' evidence can you think of?

You mean like the proven petrified wood that was given to the Dutch government? lol. You fucking muppet.

Or do you mean the "moon rocks" that they collected in Antarctica before the missions? LMFAO.

>Satellites launched in the 1960s can monitor space and actively take photos for 50+ years before running out of juice and dying

>My 2022 Android phone can't browse the web for 3 hours straight without being connected to a power source

>This thread was entertained for 80+ posts

JUNE 2025 UPDATE

Moon Landing more and more just not adding up.

Neil Armstrongs post Apollo awkwardness. Post Moon Landing Presser is a wild thing to take in. They look VERY uncomfortable
Neil Armstrongs comments later in life about peeling away truths layers...

The fact no one can land people on the Moon today is a problem...

The Film. Lots of weird sketchy anomalies. Watch the movie Moon.

Astronaut Mitchell has said on record. There are Aliens and our Govt lies to is about Aliens and Physics

>>40546592 (OP)
RIGHT, THE ONE THAT WENT UP GOT TURNED AROUND BY THE PEOPLE ALREADY THERE BUT THAT COULDNT BE TALKED ABOUT SO KUBRICK WAS HIRED TO MAKE ONE WITH MINATURES IT'S THE BEST STOP-MOTION ANIMATION EVER MADE

>>40546592 (OP)
We all know that the are horses in the moon. It's normal.

>>40547916
>the skill of competent people.
>Died to easily curable diseases
>Pissed and shitted in the street
>Kept livestock in their living quarters
>Consumed lead
You're a retard

>>40551089
of course i'd thought of those but the idea that you think its reasonable to want access to them seemed so bizarre that i didn't mention them.

since you've no idea about the geology of the moon rock samples it looks as if you've created a nice safe little hole of ignorance to sit in. well done.

>>40551122
that was never handed out as a moon rock sample. and, again, since you know nothing about moonrock composition you are under the impression that its possible to fool everyone into thinking that they came from the moon. you are also ignorant of the lunar sample return missions carried out by russia and china.

as usual, the moonhoaxie is mired in his own ignorance and memes he picked up from youtube, and loves it.

https://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/98-how-come-moon-rock-donated-to.html

>>40551498
ANOTHER JUNE 2025 UPDATE

Moonhoaxies endlessly repeat tired old retarded memes and never want to discuss anything in depth.

They just keep switching subjects and random so they dont have to talk about anything beyond the few lines they remember from the last youtube video they watched.

Your responses make it clear that you really don't understand epistemology - evidence/proof/provenance...

You're like a fairly high functioning retard that knows a lot about trains but can't really reason things out.

>>40554750
>more insults
>still avoiding discussion
great arguments

>>40555033
>>more insults
>>still avoiding discussion
>great arguments
Thanks (even though I don't think you really understand what an argument is).

>>40555103
>The moon landings didn't happen
>because they didn't happen again
this from the guy (i think) who considers the above argument convincing.

>>40555182
>>The moon landings didn't happen
>>because they didn't happen again
>this from the guy (i think) who considers the above argument convincing.

Jesus Christ, sperg. You can't even formulate a proper straw man argument. You're a C team POS. Do t let your supervisor see this thread.

>>40556692
thats the exact argument thats been made throughout this entire thread. you wont bother engaging properly anyway because you can't.

>There are no more reusable space planes capable of launching and then capturing satellites for delivery back to earth
>THE SHUTTLE WAS FAKE
>There are no more supersonic passenger aircraft
>THE CONCORDE WAS FAKE
see how it goes?

>>40546592 (OP)
fact

>>40559177
you cant provide irrefutable proof to schizos

>>40559895
>everyone who disagrees with me is a schizo

>>40546592 (OP)
Source?

>>40560380
have you read about his reasons for dismissing all the evidence? i doubt it, because ll moonhoaxies ever do is post this one screenshot.
and its not so much that its disagreeing with me is a schizo - its just that if you accept all the stupid ignorant arguments that moonhoaxies always offer up and steadfastly refuse to accept reasoned argument and evidence which shows them to be so, then you just might be a bit of a schizo.

>>40560489
you have to be schizo to buy into the moon landing

>>40560544
Seems fine to me. It clearly happened.

>>40560544
so what's your preferred argument against them?

>>40560582
>it clearly happened
then you wouldn't have trouble providing irrefutable proof

>>40560592
schizos will refute whatever they dont want to hear with nothing more than 'nuh uh'. happens all the time. there are 16000 meium format photos, dozens and dozens of hours of video footage, 800lbs of moonrock samples which have been analyzed by geologists from all over the world. Not a single person who knows that they are talking about has ever shown that the apollo stack couldnt work or that any other physical barrier exists to prevent manned spaceflight to the moon and back.

the best the moonhoaxies come up with is that the shadows in some photos 'look' wrong or that an old interview about the orion capsule guidance computer proves that the VAB radiation can't be survived.

if you prefer the latter kinds of evidence than you're simply not being reasonable.

>>40560622
yeah the russian space boss surely has never heard of those

https://archive.org/details/wagging-the-moondoggie-5

Deboonked on plebbit...lol

>>40560634
Why do you believe what he says when he has presented zero evidence about anything? Why do you refuse to look at all the massive solid evidence that goes against your cultist beliefs and instead plug your ears and pretend it doesn't exist?

>>40560998
what you call solid evidence is what has been heavily disputed

>>40560634
and you have surely never heard what he has to say about them.

>>40561045
they are not heavily disputed at all. a few cranks talking about shadows being wrong (they aren't) or the lighting looking wrong (it doesn't) is not serious disputation.

Which would you like to talk about? Im sure you're going to just regurgitate something you saw in American Moon so citing the 'question' number is fine.

>>40561045
Let's try something that gets less attention. Millions of people, no tens or even more millions of people around the world watched it in realtime. This included space agencies from around the world with sophisticated instruments and many amateurs with powerful telescopes. How do you think every single one of those people was duped or was in on this conspiracy?

>>40562811
they watched a video on the tv
the only high quality video of this "live event" was deleted
not even the controllers at houston could discern the difference between simulations and real mission
only the very senior individuals were in possession of the full picture
so, no. millions of people were not in on the conspiracy

>>40560588
i like this one from the homepage of the freemason tranquility lodge 2000:
freemasons (the guys behind the moon landing) claimed territorial jurisdiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967, but there have been zero legal repercussions. it doesn't even get mentioned.
why? because it was merely symbolic, because they never set foot on the moon.

Why the astronauts can't see stars in the moon? When we see their pictures on the moon they never took a picture of the sky and when we seem on the moon the sky is all black and without stars, but while here on Earth, it doesn't mater where we are, even on the sea, if we look to the sky we can see it black and with the stars on it. I lean towards the people who say the moon landing was fake and maybe the biggest hoax the satanic governmnt ever did.

>>40563076
As expected, you could not answer.
>they watched a video on the tv
Many, many other things than just a "video on the tv". Do you seriously expect that tens of millions of people around the world, all far smarter and better informed than you, would be fooled?
>the only high quality video of this "live event" was deleted
False. Where did you get this from?
>not even the controllers at houston could discern the difference between simulations and real mission
False. Where did you read this garbage from and why did you believe it?
>only the very senior individuals were in possession of the full picture
False. Where did you read this from and most importantly, why did you blindly and obediently believe it without question?
>so, no. millions of people were not in on the conspiracy
Millions of people were not as gullible and easy to manipulate as you.

Seriously, you are extremely ill informed. Even your basic information about the Moon landing is completely wrong. Why are you so vehemently against educating yourself?

Below is a recent upload of a guy who constantly proves the Moon Landing was faked. This is his most recent video and it's very, very well put together in terms of video analysis.

I personally like when he proves that they slowed the video down by using a devices that spreads the frames out into multiple frames that help slow down the footage. Also when he goes into objects and sand dropping to quickly.

https://youtu.be/Gor6ueKvrQA?si=b2vY51FZMJiMarL0

>>40566544
>proves
That word does not mean what you think it means. Instead of expecting anyone to watch a 4 hour long schizo word salad rant video, how about you summarize the one single most convincing "proof" he makes. Literally one. One. Singular. Pick one and only one, and describe it here.

>>40548622
>entirely a political decision
politics is driven by corporate interest, asteroid mining is immensely profitable, why would they not pursuit that massive profit

>>40548659
>the US
>funds all kinds of bullshit like MK-ULTRA and Stargate
>won't funds space mining that'll rack in massive amount of resource and possibly tritium for future energy development
what's the difference between the 2 group above? one actually work and the other is a big fat lie

>>40548850
>still can't land people on the moon
>still can only show CGI footage
too obvious, agent

>>40550337
>still provide no evidence
>bad goyim, how dare you not believe!!!

>>40554272
>no argument
>no proof
>only marketing and seething
shills these day

>>40566833
>asteroid mining is immensely profitable
Is it? Can we see your math? What do you expect to mine from asteroids, and would it be valuable enough to spend the massive resources needed?

>>40566954
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Psyche
how show me your math regarding dark matter and other such bullshit

>>40566970
You didn't answer the question. How did you come to the conclusion that mining that asteroid is profitable? If you don't show your math, you will never get any investors for your project. People want to see how much it would cost to build the spacecraft and operate it, and how valuable the minerals it would bring back are.

This is basic high school level math. Nothing more complicated than multiplications and divisions. You should be able to provide your numbers showing it would be profitable, right? If you can't, then why did you claim something you can't prove?

>>40566131
>Why the astronauts can't see stars in the moon?
because their cameras were set according to the sunny 16 rule pretty much. look that up if you dont know about it. you wont see stars even if you take shots at night because the shutter speed is too long.

try it and see and then you'll be one step closer to not thinking the moonlandings were fake.

>>40567009
>didn't even read the link
ah, my deepest apologies, you appear to be retarded
if you would summon your caretaker, I'm sure she can change your nappy and explain said link step by step for you

>>40567044
can't they simply adjust the camera and take some photo?
it's literally once in a lifetime opportunity and they didn't bother collecting as much data as possible?
or did they simply know there's no point since it's all fake

>>40554264
Im neutral on the subject. I just wanted to point out that you are just as much of a faggot as them for only providing some glowie ass site as "proof".

>>40556731
As you ironically do the same faggot tactic. Pretty sure all of you are glowies who need to die.

MIND FUCK ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXAmsaxoehs

>>40566503
Provide proof or shut the fuck up already faggot.

>>40566775
Are you the same bitch whining and literally never providing proof? The fucking irony. You're just as gay as these schizos lol

>>40566503
>>the only high quality video of this "live event" was deleted
>False. Where did you get this from?
he's right about the original apollo 11 TV broadcast footage. there no footage missing, as in we can watch it all, but the original signal that was sent from the moon was in an oddball format and was only recorded on the backup tapes at the radio telescope that received it.

moonhoaxies make a big deal about this because they think slightly higher resolution would show all the fakery or something, but they always have to completely ignore the fact that all the other landings had higher quality footage sent back from better cameras, and we have all that.

its just another dumb point that sticks in their minds.

>>40567009
They literally answered your question and provided proof lmao. Are you trolling us? Or are you that much of a dumb annoying bitch? Where the fuck do you think a majority of our resources come from? Do you think shits infinitely abundant on earth? I doubt it'll happen relatively soon; but we WILL need to venture out for resources inevitably.

TL,DR: you're a dumb faggot. Shut your little bitch ass the fuck up already dawg lmao

>>40566947
you're free to start discussing something specific. no one stopping you.

>>40567153
i think the camera was set to a few pre arranged settings. they were there to photo the moon, not the stars. it wouldn't make any difference anyway at that level of photography. they did take a UV telescope up on apollo 16 to take shots of stars though, since most UV doesn't make it to the surface of the earth.

>>40567178
so providing the actual facts makes someone a glowie? have you ever heard of the genetic fallacy?

>>40567184
one day you'll grow up and be able to discuss things like a big boy. should be fun.

>>40567140
I read the link. You are a liar. You made a claim that would be extremely simple to prove and can't provide any evidence. All you had to do was provide elementary school level math. What can be mined from those asteroids? Which minerals, how much? Specific and easy to answer question but for some reason you refuse to answer it.

>>40567217
>They literally answered your question
They quite literally did not. They quite literally provided zero proofs. Why are schizos such liars?

>>40567241
>Why are schizos such liars?
gotta lie to moonhoaxie

>>40566775
You're too smart to understand any proof.

>>40567153
I ask the same question everyone they send a rocket into space. Why are these cameras always pointed down to the ground? Why wouldn't we have some facing toward space.

>>40567640
what would you expect to see if they did?

>>40567241
Most space information is just collective knowledge based off of theories. You're a fucking massively ignorant retard, if you blindly accept only one theory or conclusion. If you want to be an actual intellect and begin to come up with a proper conclusion, then you must consider every possibility, even if it seems far fetched or untrue. Scoffing off theories is how you miss key things that could lead to the truth. Real theorists and scientists considered every way possible so they don't miss something. If you can't understand this, than you're truly too smart (retardedly ignorant) for your own good.

>>40567672
how about creating a theory then, instead of just spouting off some bullshit and expecting to be taken seriously?

>>40567655
Stars, different air changes along the rocket, anything... Its really about little video data that can be studied and also because a 1st person perspective of entering space would be amazing to see, but yet no video exists to the public.

>>40567677
Why are you so angry? Maybe if you weren't so defensive and hostile to all these commentary you'd already see theories that have been provided and links to people who have made extensive video theories about it being faked. It does not matter with someone like you though, a video could prove it was faked, yet you would only accept it if a scientist or NASA worker said it was fake. Did you take the covid shot?

>>40567679
you know that every spacex launch has HD footage? a camera pointing up would show you basically nothing but the pitch and roll movements of the vehicle and what would stop schizos from calling it fake anyway?

>>40567689
>doesn't agree with me that the landings were fake
>i must associate him with the vaxx
you guys need to get a new script.

>>40567009
You think mining isn't profitable? Are you retarded or just trolling? Which is? What kind of dipshit thinks mining wouldn't be profitable. Any sci-fi space nerd knows mining and space go hand in hand. Stop being an ignorant dipshit or troll. If you were at a space convention you'd be removed for being disruptive and foolish.

>>40567694
Nothing.... and showing the ground is some how any better? How would you even know though, show me evidence of a camera view point to space for a rocket launch, while entering space. I'm waiting.

>>40567694
Got it... so you did take the clot shot. Good job little slave. Keep sucking that tree of knowledge dick. Seems to be working out for you.

>>40567689
You have not provided a single legitimate argument, only links to 4 hour long schizo word salad videos. In this thread, not a single one of you has been able to provide a concise, factual argument. Not one. A solid, verifiable, argument. No, just gish galloping. And in the end you lie and say you have presented evidence when you haven't.

>>40567727
Where is that video evidence of a camera pointed to space when a rocket is entering space? I'm sure you could easily find some evidence or proof.

>>40567727
There is plenty of logical arguments. Just watch the Moon landing footage and see for yourself. You must question things, or else you're just a blind fool or NPC. Do you realize we're at a technology advance society, because people questioned the truth and then discovered the real truth, by questioning what was considered to be true. You aren't smart buddy. You're sadly, very dumb. IQ of an monkey and that's kind of embarrassing for the monkey.

>>40567765
>just watch the 4 hour long schizo word salad video
Amazing how you can so completely miss the point.

>>40548444
Holy trips, glowies stay mad

>>40567821
Point?

>>40567709
keep waiting because i dont care to meet your new moved goalposts

>>40567719
no, but you guys always like to insert the vaxx stuff. its funny and predictable.

>>40567821
you've yet to raise a point. the lack of a point is quite noticeable.

>>40546592 (OP)
Now look here son, there were a hundred thousand people worked on the moon program do you seriously think they were all in on the conspiracy? Maybe if you cancelled your Netflix subscription and stopped buying $5 coffees you could direct your energy into buying a home and stop pushing baseless conspiracy theories.

>>40568152
400000, but the moonhoaxie guys will then just opt for the 'need to know' position and say only a select few were in on it. mentioning the huge number of engineers etc working on the equipment does however remove their arguments about it being impossible on physical ground though.

>>40566544
myth busters did a debunk video of hoaxer claims
they went through the effort of replicating the jump salute, but they were so disingenuous that they slowed the footage down at the wrong rate so it would not match up
turns out if you slow it down at the correct rate it matches perfectly

>>40568152
see
>>40563076
it's called departmentalization

Peter Hyatt did a forensic statement analysis of an interview with Neil Armstrong and concluded that Armstrong was being deceptive

Starts at 4 minutes in
https://odysee.com/Analysing-The-Astronauts-Part-1:c

>>40568186
>if you slow things down they match jumping in low gravity
really? amazing.

>>40568225
it's all it takes to convince you someone is in on the moon

>>40568223
>someone talking about a highly secret, military adjacent, space program might not want to give all the secrets away to the russians
really? amazing.

>>40568106
You moved the goal post first. I was just matching your retardation tactics.

>>40568230
theres lots more. especially the bit about it not being impossible to construct the equipment to do it.

>>40568152
Only the astroNOTs and some key people new it was all fake. Most the people in the mission control room actually believed what they were doing was real.

>>40567689
>a video could prove it was faked, yet you would only accept it if a scientist or NASA worker said it was fake.
pretty much
a french scientist posted a picture of a chorizo and claimed it was a distant star
if he hadn't revealed that it was a joke his followers would still believe it's a real pitcture of a star

>>40568231
did you watch the interview? he is talking about his personal experience of being on the moon
nothing to lie about

Atleast this isn't as retarted as the guy who thought the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a setup by the government

>go to the moon
>become an alcoholic

>>40568239
why would myth busters go through the trouble of replicating the jump and then be so disingenuous to slow it down at a rate so it doesn't match up?

>>40568239
>not impossible to do it
>60 years later no one can do it
>polaris dawn was just a replica of gemini 11 mission
>no one goes beyond the radiation but it's totally possible to do it guise

>>40568263
The video I Iinked shows how NASA added more frames to the footage to slow it down and give the illusion of moon gravity. It also goes over objects and sand falling faster compared to the AstroNOTs, which were suspended by a cable.

>>40568235
nah, the usual request from a space is fake guy is to show an uninteruppted video of a rocker going from the pad into space. now those are everywhere i guess the new idea to ask for a shot that would be worthless to film, just so they can say 'ha ha, you cant show me so im riiight'.

>>40568249
sure i have. i also dont ascribe 100% accuracy to that kind of speech analysis, especially when applied to a guy who was a trained engineer and observational flight test pilot who was renowned for being somewhat impersonal and detached. His entire argument rests on the low use of 'I' in the guys sentences.

Its hardly compelling stuff and i would bet money on you not knowing the rate of false positives for Hyatts techniques.

>>40568297
>sure i have
so you're just another disingenuous prick since your post said he lied because of secret technical stuff

>>40568272
you have no idea what you're talking about. i bet you cant even mention the latitudes north and south that the VAB extend over without looking it up, just like you can't explain a single thing about the radiation environment in general.

>>40568303
its almost like you can't think straight.

>>40568305
well then why has no one done it?
why are all manned missions in low earth orbit?

>>40568310
>someone talking about a highly secret, military adjacent, space program might not want to give all the secrets away to the russians
your words

soft admission right here

>>40568311
>well then why has no one done it?
first, think who COULD have done it between the years of 1970-2000. China? Russia? India? All of Europe? Think about their economic situations and preferences. Then think why would anyone do it again. For what purpose?

Then think about that when it does happen again, and it will (china or US), why wont you call it fake?

>>40568326
yes thats right. ive said nothing mutually exclusive of each other.

>>40568331
he's just talking about the fact that we have no other known earth like planet to go live on i expect. why do moonhoaxies have such a hard time with context?

>>40568335
why are all manned missions in low earth orbit?

>>40568344
no, he was answering a question about shooting our garbage into space
of course you can do nothing but lie and see nothing wrong with it since you are on board with the liars who did the moonhoax
a waste of time talking to liars defending liars

>>40568347
thats where the money is. why do you think there should be all kinds of much higher altitude flights? do you think Orion flew all through the VAB and around the moon? was that fake too?

>>40568331
Low IQ submissive schizo: thinks everything is determined by cult leaders you must believe without question
Normal person: looks at evidence objectively instead of blindly believing and obeying his cult masters

Funny how nobody has still given any evidence that the Moon landing was faked. "My current master said so on youtube" is not evidence.

The moon landings are a metaphore and debating their "realness" misses the point.

>>40568442
>yfw

>>40568463
it was a masonic alchemical operation
saturn 5 elevated apollo to unite with the moon
saturn in alchemy stands for lead
i could go on

>>40568442
This comment is exactly how you think though. You're footage of supposedly being on the moon isn't proof either, unless you have proof. Please provide proof that the moon landing footage is real? What is the proof that van assure us that the moon landing footage is real. You haven't shown us or provided evidence either. Are we suppose to just believe it to be true because it's a video? Videos can be faked or altered. Explain to us the evidence that the video is real. We're all waiting.

>>40568353
great argument

>>40568487
what reason do you have to think its all fake? wyh would you not think it happened?

>>40568485
go on....

>>40568498
We've explained to you multiple times why we think it's fake. Don't dodge my question. Please provide reassurance proof that proves the footage is real and we can put this debate to an end. We're all eager to know, so we can give an apology for doubting this hoax.

>>40568516
thing is, all the evidence is there for you to look at. the case has already been made and you need to respond to it. you think it was fake...why? you reject all the photographic and video evidence...why? you reject all the moonrock sample evidence that the whole world has looked at...why? you think going farther than LEO is impossible....why?

i could go on.

>>40568498
Got it. You can provide video evidence of 1st person perspective of entering space. You can't provide evidence that the moon landing footage is real. You constantly ignore our evidence and theories. You sir are a shill and agent of the devil who promotes lies. Please load a 45 and put it to your head, so others do not suffer from your stupidity and arrogant gay trickster games.

>>40568537
The difference between me and you is, I've considered your evidence already and concluded that the evidence behind it being a hoax and fake out weight the so called real evidence or truth. Let's all be real, you've never seen or held any moon rock, and you possess no device that allows you to prove the rock is from the moon. This evidence is 100% irrelevant and cannot be trusted unless multiple agencies from different countries all provide their own samples to prove a moon Rock is a moon rock.

Why are you even trying at this point, you've lost. You can't prove it's real, but we have more evidence to prove its not real. No one makes videos about the moon landing being real, their all about the moon landing be fake and it's a hoax. You have nothing and you're pathetic for even trying to keep this argument going. Either stfu and provide a video from YouTube that clearly proves the Moon landing is real. Stop asking us for evidence that it's fake, we've all provided you evidence and there is plenty of videos out there to research. If it truly is real, then proving us wrong should be easy. Now do it faggot or stfu, or just kill yourself.

>>40568588
>, I've considered your evidence already and concluded that the evidence behind it being a hoax and fake out weight the so called real evidence or truth.
no you havent. if you're honest with yourself you know next to nothing about the subject. all you've done is watch a few videos and called it good.

>>40568504
the union of sun and moon is the magnum opus
the alchemical wedding of opposites
apollo, the solar deity unites with the moon
solar stands for gold and the moon for silver
but before apollo can unite with the moon it has to be transmuted from lead
the saturn rocket goes through stages of purification until the refined gold remains
the number is 5, the quintessence (five-essence)
the end goal of this operation is a global transfromation of consciousness manifesting a materialist world view where science and technology conquers a materialist universe
that is why they are so hellbent on keeping this lie alive
it's one of the pillars of their new world order

>>40568652
Dude I've been researching this shit for 12+ years. Stfu. Fucking tell me I don't know this subject. Dipshit kill yourself. You're a fucking shill piece of shit.

>>40568734
he wants to piss you off
they are the worst of the worst

>>40568487
Hundreds of millions of people smarter and better informed than you saw it happen. It was not a youtube video but an observable event with countless ways to see it. Do you seriously believe that the millions of astronomists around the world were all fooled and did not realize it was fake? Why is it that all believes of Moon landing hoaxes are without exception very low IQ with zero scientific knowledge?

see they will use ridiculous claims only to bait a reaction
they don't care if the landing is real or not

>>40568653
See this shit right here seems very plausible. This seems like a legit book of facts to me. Modern science puts everything into some gay concept of reasoning. This type of mystic science has deeper meaning behind it and probably pulls from many different ancient sources of lore. Considering the moon to be giant piece of lead, actually seems somewhat real and the fact lead could turn to gold seems actually true. Since gold and lead are so malleable and weigh similar to each other.

>>40568762
Yeah, exactly. This why I don't normally get into the moon discussions because some shill just jumps and spews shit and adds nothing to conversation, and then the whole discussion focus on this little faggot who should kill himself.

>>40568829
saturn is lead
transmuted into gold (apollo command module)
moon is silver

>>40568734
What is the single most convincing piece of evidence you have found to support your theories? Don't link to a youtube video or say you already have shown it. Write down in your own words the single strongest, specific evidence you have. One and only one. Be specific.

>>40568809
Yes, yes I do believe they we're fooled. Now stfu and provide proof that it's real or actually add to the conversation than just saying what ever other normie says. Faggot

interestingly the capstone of the great pyramid is said to have been covered in electrum, an alloy of gold and silver
and as you may know alchemy comes from egypt and masons have a hard on for ancient egypt

>>40568841
Awhile, I see. Do you have knowledge of the moon being a living thing. I think it was Thai culture that believes the light side is Ra and the dark side is Rah or something. I know I read somewhere that the moon was a living organism. Which leads into more questions about what it could be.

>>40568867
Pretty sure at this point the Pyramids are actually a monolith, we just see the top of it and it's grounded into the earth hundreds or thousands below the ground. I bet that gold top captured energy from the moon or planets and gave us essentially free energy.

>>40568876
i don't know about that

>>40568876
Helenism

>>40568653
This somehow makes more sense than "we have to beat the soviets"
What do you make of a potential manned Mars mission?

>>40568840
if you're so into this stuff then im unsure of why you dont actually try to talk about it. seems you prefer to hedge and hum and haw and call names.

>>40569053
>What do you make of a potential manned Mars mission?
engineering problem. thats all.

>>40569053
we can't go to mars physically
we're earthbound
it would just be a further step in the manifestation of the materialist world view

>>40569081
>we can't go to mars physically
why? lets get really specific and numerical with the caveat that i understand you'll call anything you dont like fake.

>>40568263
Mythbusters, especially the "Build" team, were notoriously retarded. They got into constant arguments with the fans because they'd do shit half-assed and call it busted. They would even have to do new episodes on old subjects because there was such a fan debate around them, like the arrow split. That + TV dying is what started to kill Mythbusters. So the idea of them being retarded is not at all far-fetched in the slightest.

>>40568335
>>40568384
You keep making this "no money no reason" argument, but I'm genuinely not buying it as a neutral 3rd party here. NASA's budget was down in 1969 by a substantial amount from its peak in 1965 from ~$35b to ~$23b, so it was already operating at a lower cost in general from it's peak, which is strange considering the tech required to perform this feat. But then afterwards even after the budget cuts, it's not like they were out of money. Even their lowest point, they still had a cool ~$12b which is nothing to scoff at, and then their budget was still around that area up until the spike in the late 80s/90s, and you're somehow telling me that the price to space admission was just $13b more than what they had?
>B-buh muh inflation!
Shouldn't the price of technology required to do this task also go down though? SpaceX making recoverable rocket parts to reduce the price didn't happen until a private company started looking into this on their own, and honestly the way they handled it actually seemed pretty simple. "Why not just recover the shit we're using to lift off to reuse it?" That should definitely have been something they could have thought of in the 70s-80s. Why not until 2010+?

And then the idea that there's no money in space runs into 2 problems.
1. We don't know what all of what is in space yet, we need to explore it.
2. We KNOW there is money in space. A shit ton of it.
>B-b-buh it's not feasible!
Surely just the idea of it being there should have incentivized tons of people. We do we not see them try?

>>40569827
What money is there in space exactly?

>>40569827
>was down in 1969 by a substantial amount from its peak in 1965 from ~$35b to ~$23b, so it was already operating at a lower cost in general from it's peak
right, because all the up front developmental investment was already done. the remaining budget kept things going. you know how its more expensive to start something from nothing than it is to keep it ticking along. like economic inertia, right?
The rest of your money talk is out of inflationary context so im not sure of the timeline.
>Shouldn't the price of technology required to do this task also go down though?
it should really, but you're talking about government projects anon. they aren't known for their obedience to normal market forces.

>. We don't know what all of what is in space yet, we need to explore it.
i agree to a certain extent. but we know where money isn't. aside from GEO which has its uses, all the money is to be made with vehicles in LEO at the moment.
>We KNOW there is money in space. A shit ton of it.
its hard to beat the rocket equation anon. its simply not been shown to be profitable to, for example, mine stuff from asteroids so far. things like what spacex is trying to do are attempts to make access to those areas cheaper for people since getting into orbit is most the cost.

>>40570010
Picture was already posted.

>you know how its more expensive to start something from nothing than it is to keep it ticking along. like economic inertia, right?
That's all well and good, but it still shows that NASA DID have quite a sizable budget on hand even after the space race was done and over with. Why NOT make continued outages into space?

>but you're talking about government projects anon. they aren't known for their obedience to normal market forces.
While true, that's actually also an argument to keep NASA better funded and doing the same thing over and over again.

>but we know where money isn't.
But that's actually the thing. We don't. Saying we KNOW that money isn't there with our current physical exploration would be like saying "We were on North American shores for 3 weeks and we didn't discover El Dorado. No need to send any more people on the journey to there to keep double checking."

>its simply not been shown to be profitable to, for example, mine stuff from asteroids so far.
It's not profitable to figure out a way to get to and mine an estimated trillians or quadrillions worth of metal? I'm not saying that this should be easy in the slightest, but I don't think you can just poo-poo away numbers that huge for an investment that would take, even giving the most aggrandizing budget, $35b to at least REACH said astroid, let alone bring some of it back. Especially in a lower gravity environment like that.

>>40551145
Your phone doesn't have a fuckin rtg radioactive powering element or solar panels directly aimed at the sun without atmospheric interference you absolute bean.

>>40546592 (OP)
They've tried using the VLT-I to look at the landing sites and btfo conspiracy theorists.

Obviously they've failed but that doesn't stop them from keeping the hoax alive.

https://archive.is/unZA

>>40570340
Why do you keep dodging the question? You have been asked several times what money there is to be made in space. You refuse to answer. And then you lie and said you already answered.

Gus Grissom hung a lemon on the capsule to show what a piece of shit it was. Shortly after he and the crew died in an accident.

>>40573134
Just as Thomas Baron, a safety inspector who filed a whistleblower report.

NASA shills are so easy to spot.

Durrrrrrree there is no value in space. Fucking retards

>>40573134
>>40573137
NAA wasnt doing very well in terms of quality and safety control but that doesn't mean they murdered a low level inspector who had already published all his information. And it definitely doesn't mean the landings were faked.

>>40547786
You are never ever leaving this enclosed plane alive you retarded golem. CGI is all you get in this life which is more than you deserve anyway.

>>40573691
Where is that gold? How will we extract it? How much can we extract and how much would it cost? You still have not answered these simple questions. I wonder why.

>>40573008
even if it was able to attain its maximum angular resolution while looking at the moon, something the size of the descent stage would maybe show up as half a pixel. And then you'd just call it fake anyway.

>>40573914
>And then you'd just call it fake anyway.
Certainly, which is why you should just give up and let people not believe in your fantasy.

>>40573990
no u

>>40573914
In what world does INDIA have the best space program giving us the clearest images?

>>40574178
there might be some better ones from the LRO. not sure

>>40573093
>You have been asked several times what money there is to be made in space. You refuse to answer. And then you lie and said you already answered.

You disingenuous cocksucker. He-3 (for clean fusion) sourced from the moon alone is potentially worth trillions.

"Oh, really? Provide a detained Excel spreadsheet breaking down the costs and ROI." LMAO

Go fuck yourself, you glowie clown. You're about to be demoted because a bunch of NEET, tranny porn gooners just handed you your ass over and over and over again on this thread. Or hell...maybe you'll get a commendation ...if you're brown.

>>40546592 (OP)
Surprising if not. It's not that difficult, we send probes onto things all the time, all it takes is strapping a few monkeys into the thing you launch to it. If you have unlimited money to just waste on meaningless bullshit instead of actually useful space research, like the space race pissing contest, it's not difficult to find some retards willing to let you strap them into the thing you're launching to the moon.

>>40574224
The point is they are fake and gay and what they give us isnt even believable at face value if you just assume its true

Well…. I no longer assume anything anyone says about ‘outer space’ is true and a ‘photo’ isnt proof of anything

>>40573914
>half a pixel
According to ESA it should have been able to distinguish the headlights of a car on the moon, but there was nothing. They were so certain they would see something. I would have loved to see their faces when they found nothing at the landing sites.

>>40574383
>ITS FAAAAKKEEEE!!!1
>NO I HAVE NO EVIDENCE
>I JUST KNOW!
schizo

>>40574391
>it should have been able to distinguish the headlights of a car on the moon,
that just means it could potentially distinguish them from each other instead of just seeing a single light. look up its max possible angular resolution and work out the size of objects it would see at the moons distance if you dont believe me.

The height of manned space flights…
>gemini XI (1966) 1,374 km
>polaris dawn (2024) 1,400 km
Meanwhile Laika, the first animal to orbit the Earth, still holds the record for the highest altitude reached by a mammal, and she didn’t live for long since she sent right into the radiation that wasn’t known at that time
>sputnik 2 (laika) (1958) 1,659 km

>>40574361
You cant get past the firmament tho

>>40574420
To view an object the size of the lunar lander an resolution of 0.002arc seconds is necessary. The VLT-I has an angular resolution of 0.001 arc seconds. ESA also mentioned that the lander would cast a long shadow under the right circumstances which would have been easily visible with the telescope. Yet there was nothing.

>>40574433
nothing to do with radiation. no one ever said that was the problem. they said it was the capsule environmental control failed and it got too hot inside.

>>40574453
>To view an object the size of the lunar lander an resolution of 0.002arc seconds is necessary.
and what would that actually mean? thats the pixel im talking about IF they were able to max its resolution out...which apparently they couldn't, because its hard.

>>40574472
You should just go to Chile and see the empty landing sites yourself.

>>40574560
they couldn't get the thing to work to be able to see the sites. thats the point. and if youre honest you know 100% for sure you'd be calling it fake if they had been able to get it to work and seen something. thats how it is with schizos and their pet fantasies.

>>40574666
lol. You talking about honesty. They didn’t say why they didn’t see anything. They just made a bold announcement and then no follow up.

>>40574715
It's a waste of funding. Going there with humans in that era was difficult but they didn't care because it was a cock measuring contest with Russia. To go back there now with humans should be trivial at least, if you can get people to the ISS space station and land things on Mars, with the health and safety non-existsnce of the 60s and such, you could easily just stick some living animal into the thing that gets rocketed away.

The Moon isn't that farfetched unless the distance is a lie.

>>40574339
>Provide a detained Excel spreadsheet breaking down the costs and ROI."
Unironically that would give your argument credibility. But because you're unable to do even simple elementary school math, nobody is buying your argument. You are pitching to investors to give you billions and when they ask to see the math about getting profits, you just sperg out and call them glowies.

>>40574391
>According to ESA
>there was nothing
Liar. ESA said no such thing. Or if they did can you link to where they did?

>>40574433
What radiation are you talking about? Be specific. Post numbers. Laika was always meant to die, but she died prematurely due to overheating.

>>40575046
You're not an investor, dumb fuck. You're some pick marked dipshit sitting in some stale AFB cube farm, making minimum wage to get embarrassed by a bunch of NEETs. lol Nobody is wasting time with your loser ass.

>>40546592 (OP)
>Moon landing never happened

It did. Keep seething, Rajesh.

>>40575052
If there was something they would have shown it. They didn’t say why they didn’t see anything or why the telescope failed. Technically it should have been perfectly able to do the job. That’s why they attempted it. The silence is quite telling.

>>40574966
That’s just cope. I hope you realize that.

>>40575207
>It did. Keep seething, Rajesh.
The only seethers in this thread are mid wit sci fi fan bois. Nobody else here really gives two shits that it never happened.

>>40575073
Here’s von Braun talking for the first time about the unexpected radiation.
https://youtu.be/UcVgCO8mRJo?feature=shared

He’s calling it a problem that needs to solved.
Funfact: the van allen belts would have been called Vernov belts after the Russian scientist who first discovered it if he had realized what he discovered.
They also changed the story of why and how Laika died.

>>40575247
>Technically it should have been perfectly able to do the job.
you've not the first idea about the technicalities of how that telescope works.

>>40575307
>He’s calling it a problem that needs to solved.
and it was - sufficiently dense spacecraft construction using appropriate materials combined with a trajectory taking it around the majority of the trapped particles at its fastest speeds of the entire mission.
solved. everyone was fine.

>changed the story
you just made that up.

>>40575890
>you've not the first idea about the technicalities of how that telescope works.
cool story i have one myself
>and it was
it wasn't and it isn't solved today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBUwdyz4I
>you just made that up
Laika's death was possibly caused by a failure of the central R‑7 sustainer to separate from the payload. The true cause and time of her death were not made public until 2002; instead, it was widely reported that she died when her oxygen ran out on day six or, as the Soviet government initially claimed, she was euthanised prior to oxygen depletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika

>>40576028
>cool story i have one myself
i mean i have a telescope i don't have an interferometer obviously. but they themselves said it would do the job you can read the article i've linked

>>40576028
>it wasn't and it isn't solved today
that fucking video AGAIN. its all you fags ever have, and none of you seem to realize that the guy was talking about the navigation computer on the Orion capsule, NOT human exposure. He was also talking before the thing ever flew in space. on its first test flight they had it flying in all the intense areas of the VAB for days on end to see if the computers were effected. they were fine.

>laika
and they never said it was the VAB radiation which killed her.

>i have one myself
lol

>>40575247
So when did they "fail" this? Give the exact date, and link to them saying they attempted it on this date and failed.

>>40576190
>that fucking video
it's an admission by a NASA employee
talking about navigation systems doesn't change the fact
>and they never said it was the VAB radiation which killed her.
they were not honest about her cause of death, hence the changed story

also, apollo astronaut alan bean was asked about the ill effects of the radiation belt, but he didn't even recall if they went far enough out to encounter it. which is true since he never went beyond that region
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHfsHYg7Yoo

>>40576227
did you read the article?

>>40576276
>it's an admission by a NASA employee
no its not. its just the guy responsible for designing and building the navigation equipment talking about some of the design challenges he's facing, challenges which his equipment fully over came. its not saying anything about human radiation exposure or radiation in general being some kind of impossible thing to deal with.

>didn't even recall if they went far enough out to encounter it
its possible that he was talking about his mission on skylab. how videos are edited is important.

>>40576310
it's an interview by bart sibrel, a famous moon landing skeptic
he wasn't talking about skylab

>>40576321
oh ok, i'll just take your and barts word for it then.

>>40576350
see all you have is cope
>h-he was talking about skylab!

>>40576310
can you show how apollo solved the shielding issue? reminder that apollo 14 went straight through the most energetic areas of the belts

>>40576305
Did you? It mentioned a theoretical situation. It did not say they did it. So I ask again, on what date did they do it and fail? Do not evade the question. Answer with an exact date. If you can't, it would be admitting to lying.

>>40576396
teh combination of materials, including a thick layer of fibrous insulation, meant it had an average density of about 8g/cm2. yes apollo 14 pass through more energetic areas of the belts but did so while at its fastest speeds in both direction, minimizing exposure duration to the crew. you;ll see that the crew dose for 14 was the highest of all the missions.

so far as the computer equipment was concerned, Apollo didn't use the kind of microprocessors and memory that is used today, and it was less susceptible to errors caused by particles flipping bits in memory etc.

>>40576276
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214552423000226?via%3Dihub#fig11

theres some radiation exposure data from Artemis 1, which was in a long lunar orbit for about a month. maybe spend some time trying to understand that instead of posting silly videos that dont say what you think they say.

>>40576028
Instead of spamming schizo youtube videos how about writing down hard facts? Write down the amounts of radiation you believe the crew would be subject to, at what altitudes and for how long?

Show your math.

These simple words always make schizos seethe as they can never provide any elementary school level math. Not once. Why is that?

>>40576422
read the article it's from 2002
there is not much transparency regarding the experiment
that's why the silence is so deafening after they've made such an announcement

>>40576433
the capsule had windows that weren't shielded at all
any radiation could enter and bounce around inside

>>40576474
Why can't you answer a simple question? On what date did they conduct this failed experiment that you are convinced happened? You say it did happen so obviously you have proofs including the exact date.

>>40576491
can you not read?
>there is not much transparency regarding the experiment

>>40576507
Then how do you know its details? You say it happened and it failed. It means you saw those details somewhere and aren't just making shit up. So tell us where you read about this experiment and why you think there is no transparency about it?

>>40576652
if it didn't fail then they would have shown results, no?

This gives the VLT a maximum angular resolution of about 0.001 arc-second at 1 micron wavelength (in the near-infrared), which is equivalent to about 2 meters at the distance of the Moon. (The Moon has an angular diameter of 0.5° and a linear diameter of 3476 km; 0.5°/0.001" = 1,800,000; 3476 km/1,800,000 ~ 2 m). Used in interferometric as distint from individual-instrument mode, however, the VLT is only sensitive to objects with a high surface brightness, such as stars and the nuclei of active galaxies. This makes it unsuitable for observing most objects in the Solar System apart from the Sun.


https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Paranal_Observatory.html

common sense these days. i think most people know deep down that space isn’t real aswell

“yes we have this telescope so we know what happened 50 billion years ago 3 trillion lightyears away the bible isn’t reliable tho cuz its so old”

notice how nobody has ever caught a picture of a planet on camera or on their telescope? nasas explanation:

uhh bleeeh duhh you must have a hubble 70 9 ultimate to see the planet goy!! trust me

science is the biggest scam of sll time

>>40576817
>notice how nobody has ever caught a picture of a planet on camera or on their telescope?
you're trying too hard at sounding retarded.

>>40546592 (OP)
Now do the shape of the earth, anon

>>40546597
Wtf am I looking at on the left

>>40576815
you see this contradicts what ESA was saying and why they attempted to look at the landing sites. the VLT-I operates in the near infrared spectrum, meaning saying it can only be used to observe objects with "high surface brightness" is absoletely wrong.

>https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/Paranal_Observatory.html
>I'm an astronomer, science writer, and music produce
wow just like me

>>40576666
Why do you keep dodging the question? If it happened and failed you would be able to name the date and details. You refuse to answer. This means one of the two: it did happen and you refuse to name the date and your information source for some reason. Or it did not happen and you are lying. Which?

>>40546592 (OP)
CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS A FUCKING HORSE SHADOW ON HIS HELMET REFLECTING???
OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO ALL IGNORE IT!?

>>40548721
Explain the horses shadow then

Protip: YOU WONT/CANT

Alright, strap in, because the Moon landing in 1969 was a straight-up hoax, and I’ve got the facts to back it up. They didn’t land on the Moon, and here’s why:

The Waving Flag: The American flag planted on the Moon is seen waving in videos. Problem is, the Moon has no atmosphere, so there’s no wind to make it move. NASA claims it’s because the flag was crinkled and moved due to the lack of gravity, but that’s a weak excuse. Look at the footage—it’s flapping like it’s in a breeze on a Hollywood set.
Missing Stars in Photos: The photos from the Moon show a pitch-black sky with no stars. With no atmosphere to scatter light, stars should be blazing bright. Photographers have pointed out that even with fast exposure settings, some stars should’ve shown up. Instead, it’s a blank void—suspiciously like a studio backdrop.
Van Allen Radiation Belts: The Earth is surrounded by intense radiation belts discovered by James Van Allen. Passing through them would’ve fried the astronauts with lethal doses of radiation. NASA claims the Apollo spacecraft were shielded, but the tech in the 1960s was barely advanced enough to handle basic spaceflight, let alone protect against that kind of cosmic radiation. The math doesn’t add up.

>>40579521
Inconsistent Shadows: In the Moon photos, shadows fall in different directions, even though the Sun was the only light source. Parallel light rays from the Sun should create parallel shadows, but some images show shadows converging or diverging. This screams artificial lighting, like you’d find on a soundstage with multiple spotlights.
The “C” Tapes: NASA conveniently “lost” the original high-quality Apollo 11 telemetry tapes. These tapes would’ve been the ultimate proof of the landing, but they’re gone—erased or misplaced, they say. What kind of organization loses the most important footage in human history? Sounds like evidence being scrubbed.
Stanley Kubrick Connection: Here’s the kicker—legend has it Stanley Kubrick, fresh off *2001: A Space Odyssey, was tapped to fake the landing. His film had groundbreaking visual effects, and some claim he used the same tech to stage the Moon landing in a Nevada desert studio. Look at the similarities between 2001’s space scenes and the Apollo footage—eerily close. Plus, Kubrick’s later film The Shining allegedly has hidden clues, like the kid wearing an Apollo sweater, as if he’s taunting us.
No Independent Verification: The Soviets, who were neck-and-neck with the U.S. in the Space Race, never disputed the landing, even though it would’ve been in their interest to call out a hoax. Why? Some say it was a Cold War deal—both sides faked their space wins to keep the public distracted. No third-party telescopes or probes ever independently confirmed the Apollo landing sites until much later, and even then, the images were from NASA-controlled sources. Fishy.

>>40579524
The Lunar Module Looks Like Junk: That lunar module? It looks like it was slapped together with tinfoil and duct tape. The 1960s tech was supposed to withstand extreme temperatures, vacuum, and micrometeorites? And yet, it left no blast crater or kicked-up dust under its engines when landing on the Moon’s dusty surface? Compare that to modern rocket tests—they scorch the ground. Smells like a prop, not a spacecraft.
The real reason? The U.S. needed to flex on the Soviets and boost national pride. The Space Race was a propaganda war, and faking the Moon landing was the ultimate checkmate. They filmed it in Area 51 or a studio, used slow-motion tricks, and sold the world a lie. Wake up—the evidence is right there!

>>40550726
Then why is the video so easily found?

>>40579486
Are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>40579527
Good summary of some of the points but reason for why they did it is here
>>40568653

>>40579524
>No third-party telescopes or probes ever independently confirmed the Apollo landing sites
False. Is your entire copypasta nothing but lies?

>>40579521
If the math doesn't add up then why are you not posting it? Tell us how much radiation would have been received by astronauts. An exact number. Show the math.

Now watch him squirm and sperg out as his "math doesn't add up" argument got demolished.

>>40575262
>The only seethers in this thread are mid wit sci fi fan bois. Nobody else here really gives two shits that it never happened.

You just don't give a fuck about the truth. People who actually care already know it happened and you kids can keep playing pretend.

All you do is listen to conspiracy peddlers.

>>40578938
>what ESA was saying
i think you;ll find that most of what you think the guys working on the telescope said actually came from an over enthusiastic journalist taking a few comments and running wild with them.
>meaning saying it can only be used to observe objects with "high surface brightness" is absoletely wrong.
why do you think that? do you think that contrast isn't a thing when observing in infrared?

>>40579511
the what?

>>40579521
>Photographers have pointed out that even with fast exposure settings, some stars should’ve shown up
which photographers? what setting were used, do you know? have you ever tried using those setting to take photos of stars? the only thing that ever showed up in some photos was Venus, and thats brighter than any star by several orders of magnitude

>>40579521
>Passing through them would’ve fried the astronauts with lethal doses of radiation
prove that please.
> protect against that kind of cosmic radiation
VAB radiation is not cosmic radiation, and i bet you have no idea what the difference is or what the actual measured levels of each is anyway.

>>40579524
>In the Moon photos, shadows fall in different directions, even though the Sun was the only light source. Parallel light rays from the Sun should create parallel shadows,
see picrel for one way in which shadows can be altered. THen theres the simple fact that they can appear to be divergent in photographs when they are not, just because of how rendering the real world in 2 dimensions causes such effects.

Take a good look at this webm. its an image often used by moonhoaxies as they try to claim that the shadows in the photos are fake.

Ive never seen a moonhoaxie even bother to construct such models as part of their 'evidence' Perhaps because they know it wont help their arguments.

or how about this?

>>40579940
And yet in school they tell us the shadow difference comes from muh curved ball lol

>>40579796
>False
Source?

>>40579799
I'm 99% sure you're a troll, but in the off case you are 1% a sincere autist: As a third party who is neutral on the subject, you are the LEAST convincing argument in the thread. If anything, it's leaning me away from legitimacy. You would have better odds of convincing me by false flagging as the hoaxers at this point.

>>40579919
>which photographers?
The original claim was that photographers have said that the stars would not be captured at their exposure settings, so I'd actually rather see which photographers said that it WOULDN'T be captured first. I need a source on that before I consider your argument.

>>40579926
I don't know the difference. Why wouldn't it?

>>40579940
Those shadows aren't that altered. It's an illusion from the rock surface.
>>40580276
I think this also doesn't do a lot for the case. Those shadows do not look that different even from the angel.
>>40579965
This is way more believable and does a better job demonstrating it.

>>40581090
>photographers have said that the stars would not be captured at their exposure settings
and thats correct. the shutterspeed was set 1/250 at an apurture no wider than f5.6 for the main 60mm cameras used. you cant capture stars like that, especially with the relatively slow film stock used.
You can check this out with your own camera, or do some reading about light levels and stuff.

>>40581090
>I don't know the difference. Why wouldn't it?
the VAB is trapped protons and electrons which while energetic dont have much mass. THey are also nowhere near as energetic as cosmic radiation. Cosmic radiation, at least the stuff which is dangerous, is mostly heavy atomic nuclei like from iron, moving at almost the speed of light. Its that stuff which can't really be protected against, but thankfully the dangerous ones make up less than 1% of all cosmic radiation.
The stuff in the VAB is pretty easy to shield against compared to that stuff.

>Those shadows aren't that altered. It's an illusion from the rock surface.
but it still looks like its a different angle in the picture doesn't it. thats the whole point. thats what you're dealing with in the moon photos.

>Those shadows aren't that altered. It's an illusion from the rock surface.
but it does show you the simple effect of perspective on how parallel shadows can appear. its part of what you see, along with other effects.

>>40581137
what shielding did they use on the windows?

>>40582004
it did have an external plate for UV protection but yeah, the windows would probably allow somewhat more penetration by some kinds of higher energy particles....but remember that for particle radiation its the density of blocking material that counts, not necessarily if its opaque to light. But what was the exposure really like anyway? If you exaggerate the dangers then having a window might seem crazy. If you dont, then you see that the utility of a couple small windows outweighs the tiny amount of difference it makes.

Check out picrel, and then maybe read up on the VAB here
https://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html

how much difference do you think the windows made?