Was it legit?

Was it legit?

Other urls found in this thread:

haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2006/11/01/delusions-of-space-enthusiasts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna-Glob#Future_lunar_base
youtube.com/watch?v=0VfAfzNEWOc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#Apollo_11_broadcast
youtube.com/watch?v=1hKSYgOGtos
archive.is/ESoG4
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes

look through a telescope and see for yourself.

No one will ever know for sure.

>first reel human bean on the moon's surface
>the date was 1969
>last man on moon from our current year (2017)
>still 1969
seems legit

Flat moon confirmed.

Sure. Best movie Kubrick ever made.

here's my question, if you look up how many g's kill a person it says 10gs. But they say john glenn came into the atmosphere at 10,000+ miles an hour. Just don't see how anyone could survive it

are you fucking kidding me

1972

g force is an acceleration. so i dunno about the john glenn thing. but 10gs is the extended period that a human can supposedly withstand.

in decceleration tests back in the 1960s humans have survived 36Gs for 2 secs or so. Remember there's a thick atmosphere that decelerate him and at that height it isnt like hitting SL atmosphere so the deceleration isnt sudden.

Well he didn't stop all at once. It was gradual.

Everything in low earth orbit goes about 26,000mph. Everyone who has ever come back has gone through the same acceleration.

Yes. The purpose of the Apollo Program was to build the necessary technological and logistical base to develop a weapons platform in the moon's orbit. The idea being that you could very easily and cheaply drop heavy objects from lunar orbit to strike locations on the earth. Such a position would be completely unassailable.

In the process of doing so we made very efficient rockets, and we soon figured out that we could make a rocket that lifted a nuclear payload to anywhere in the world.

So we stopped going to the moon, because we had accomplished our goal of developing a weapon that would bring world peace.

Be very thankful that we never had to back to the moon.

this

we never went to the moon. the shining is a masterpiece and hidden within it, is kubrik's confession.

Humans going to the moon? Sure

That bullshit nasa gave us? no

thats true, the last time we 'went to the moon' was in 1972.

and wouldn't ya know it, as soon as the vietnam wasr was over, we suddenly stopped going to the moon. it couldn't possibly have been a giant PR stunt or anything to distract gullible americans from the horrors of a war we had no business being in, right?

Kubricks movie no ,landing yes. They've encountered alien spacecrafts and building while on the mission to moon(wich they knew already of from satelite imagery).

It was.
The audio and video feed probably not so much

>space aliens are real meme

please fuck off back to GLP.

What imagery?

sounds interesting. got any good reading? i've been down these rabbit holes a bit, but don't think i've ever ran into this info.

where are the stars?

Noooooooooo!

NEIN

Yes but the footage was faked in order to hide alien bases from the public

>Hungarian education

Fun fact: after the Dutch realized that the moon rock nasa gave them was fake, other countries moon rocks quietly started to go missing. NASA encased all the gift moon rocks in plastic and mounted them to boards with little plaques and gave them to 136 different countries. Fast forward to today and only 5 countries can account for their moon rocks (all Anglo countries). Recently a woman who had a moon rock given to her back in the day by a nasa employee had attempted to sell it and was raided by a swat team and had it confiscated.

>not knowing how to land a spaceship

He didn't come in at a 90 degree angle like a dart, you come in at an angle, bleed off some speed and continue your orbit pattern so you can cover many thousands of miles decending

he's talking, erroneously, and loosely basing an assumption on what was known as the 'star wars' program which didn't exist until the 80's - it did not take place during moon landing times. no country has ever attempted nor planned to have 'moon bases' or any of that shit. it's fantasy land lizard people nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

you brazilian nigger explain how a person can withstand the force of flying that fast, when significantly less has killed people

>I'm not that interested in space. I think it's good, I think we ought to know about it, we're ready to spend reasonable amounts of money. But we're talking about these fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs and the only justification for it in my opinion to do it in this time or fashion is because we hope to beat them [the Soviet Union] and demonstrate that starting behind, as we did by a couple of years, by God, we passed them.
--JFK

Not really, sadly. The whole pop-sci thing has made it very difficult to find accurate information about space travel and its origins.

Neil Degrasse Tyson was writing a book on it called Delusions of Space Enthusiasts, but his publisher forced him to change the title, and i don't know how that turned out. Chronicles of something or other, i think was the title. I doubt he still cares about it now that he's found his calling as a liar for science.

haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2006/11/01/delusions-of-space-enthusiasts

That means two things:
>the moonlanding was faked
Or
>there are 131 real moonrocks scattered around earth, and probably the deepweb and blackmarkets are holding them

Sure
Just look at the wind

An orbital installation is not a moon base, and it has the same technological requirements as Skylab did.

Google Project Thor. It started in the 50's. It's very basic shit.

Doesn't matter had sex.

this, desu

someone doesn't understand relativity.

It the start of Kubricks 2001 we see a continuity error: a woman has a blue sweater on the back of her chair, next shot the sweater is gone. Next scene we hear the announcements in the background (as the characters are speaking) saying that a blue sweater has been found and turned in to the lost and found.

We know Kubrick was detail oriented to the point of OCD. So what Is Kubrick telling us? That any following continuity errors are purposeful? Like shadows on the moon going off in opposite directions (in the movie) or the flag waving by itself in the boardroom (in the movie)?

yeah
>french hoax nigger hasn't found this thread yet

Dude there's a simple explanation for all of that.

First off, they either made a mistake giving an earth-rock to the dutch, or they gave them one deliberately because they figured the dutch wouldn't figure it out ever. How are they going to check anyway, go to the moon and compare?

Next, people stole the moonrocks for sale or to keep for themselves. I mean if there are under 200 on earth at the time, they have to be worth something just given the rarity.

Finally, the reason that lady had the rock confiscated by armed cops is because she called NASA to ask about the moonrock which she had received as a gift, and some asshole bureaucrat decided that she was misappropriating NASA property and sent feds after her. The case didn't go anywhere if I recall, and the bureaucrat who did it was basically ridiculed as being overzealous and douchy.

That's not relativity you dingus.

option #1 is most likley.

did you also know that all of the original footage tapes of every moon mission suddenly went missing?

i'm talking entire warehouses full of movie reels. just vanished one day.

i have a different "explanation"
humans do genuinely land on the moon, but we get absolutely fake photos of it.
maybe there's somethingbout there not ment for eyes of the common people...

what do you say about that?

They lacked the technology to seamlessly play 6 hours of video in 1969.

The signals came from the moon. the russians triangulated them.

retard, explain it with 'relativity'

guarantee you will just say that I am stupid, and will not come up with a simple explanation

ahh gotcha.

>no country has ever attempted nor planned to have 'moon bases'

Russia actually has a ROBOTIC lunar base planned about 20 years out.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna-Glob#Future_lunar_base

#2 is closer

Have something highly valuable in unsecured government settings and shit is bound to go missing. Heard 60+ have turned up in the last 10 years because they now have a high value and are actively being looked for.

he was walking 'nuclear capable moon bases'. i was explaining there were never any such plans. we've had plans for shit like orbital death ray lasers that are pre-star wars, but never anything like he was talking about. and certainly not physically stationed on the moon.

no

What force is on the occupant when they're flying fast? Do you feel a force pressing on you when you are cruising at 60mph on the freeway?

Acceleration kills. Speed does not.

your next
youtube.com/watch?v=0VfAfzNEWOc

You are very bad at reading. Go over it again. The payload of a Thor station was just a rocket-assisted Tungsten rod. During the development of the rockets for the Apollo program we figured out that we could INSTEAD use them for NUCLEAR PAYLOADS.

First off so there is no confusion, I'm clearly talking out of my ass and just having a bit of fun.

Okay, that all makes sense actually except for the first part.myou realize that's sketchy as fuck and the scientific community doesn't act like that, right? If an amazing breakthrough was claimed worldwide and a scientific team claimed to have petrified semen from Jesus, they would just hand out dry vanilla pudding stains as proof cause "meh, they won't figure out the difference".

The atmosphere is not like a brick wall you suddenly hit, spacecraft returning to earth gradually go down the atmosphere in a steep angle to minimize the G-forces and heat.

It's not rocket science, really.

/thread

i know you want to believe there's aliens. there aren't.

wrong. the 'signals' came from an austrailian dish.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#Apollo_11_broadcast

Transformers was not a documentary.

thread theme
youtube.com/watch?v=1hKSYgOGtos

You don't know how a receiver works?

sounds like something a decepticon would say

...

The world wanted thier gold back so the fiat jig was up,so by the time Nixon stop the international gold back dollar,people say we was printing fiat,and we pulled out and reduced space program.

>Focal length is magic

do we have any data on the focal length on the cameras?

Nice try Optimus Prime

Also, if earth is being lit nearly completely, then the sun would be behind the camera.
There is no shadow on earth, but there should be.
If we can't see the shadow, then the sun, moon, and earth are directly inline.
If they are inline, then there should be no shadow on the right side of earth and moon.

I wonder if there was an eclipse on the day these images were taken.. let me take a look..

we know everything about the cameras. which is also more proof that we didn't go to the moon. the film itself could not work in the -320 degrees of space. the nitrocellulose in the film strips would freeze solid at around -170, becoming too brittle to even move on the camwheel without shattering. the other chemicals on the film itself would be frozen. film is also extremely sensitive to radiation. between the operating temperature and radiation alone proves the film could never have been from the moon.

if it wasn't it was a pretty clever ploy along the path to push soviets into bankruptcy.

buzz got pretty fucking mad when that one shit told him it was fake, so either buzz was lied to as well or he really went.

because i love my country i choose to believe.

>Why NASA’s new photos of the moon look super fake (even though they’re not) - wapo
archive.is/ESoG4

This was "taken" on july 5th 2016.
There was no eclipse on this day.

wow, I've watched many vids about this conspiracy and I've never heard about issues with the film. You got a link?

I meant more in relation to Do we know what cameras and the focal length used to create such different images as shows?

and I know the earth was pasted into the 69 shots. I'm just looking for more evidence.

Anyone ever notice how whenever people want to discuss doubts about NASA, or the flaws in the JFK Warren commission report or the official 9/11 report that (((they))) always seem to steer the conversation towards flat earth or pizza?

The flag is French now, but you might be able to locate it.

yes

i was there

t. former NASA employee

Yes.

The Soviet Union even said it was legit, and they'd have had all the incentive in the world to claim it was fake.

the sun should be behind the photographer, but not necessarily directly behind. you can do this experiment by holding a golfball (moon) and softball (earth) in front of a light (sun) and attempting to reposition yourself (photographer) so that there is complete light on the softball, but no shadow from the golf ball.

it's not difficult, i just did it with different props.

That part where Jack Nicholson was talking about he has obligations and how "they" are pressuring him.

Even as a dumb 18 year old, I thought that part was funky as hell.

Yes

What sort of self hating cuck would downplay humanity's greatest achievement?

...

Indeed.

Bashed this out in SpaceEngine in 2 minutes

You do recognized that the 33rd degree doesn't actually exist, right? It's an honorary award. The Scottish Rite only goes up to the 32nd degree, normally.
All of the first astronauts on the moon were Freemasons.

And with a different focal length much closer

Yet the earth and moon are fully illuminated as the moon passes over the earth. There should be an eclipse. If not an eclipse, than the moon and sun would be visible in the sky at the same time, and there would be no moon on the other side of the earth.

I'm gonna look up moon cycles now..

Is this what you call gaslighting?

no, it's what you call astronomy 101.

Astronauts left a reflector on the Moon that observatories can bounce a laser off of to measure the distance.

that is a useless comment. If you have taken an astronomy class and are so knowledgeable, then help me understand this.

no actually I was the one who put the reflector there. I am the only one who can shoot lasers to it, and I am the only one who can confirm the reflector is on the moon.

proove me wrong

He's talking about artifacts from composite images of the moon from back in the early 2000s or something. Ignore him. He's a fucking nut.

There is no moon.
There is no spoon.
Have you ever realized the moon and the sun
look exactly the same size from earth?
Coincidence?
I don't think so.

...

you can see them both at the same time you dumb fucking shit

i just told you an experiment you could perform right now. maybe another assumption that you are making is that you can see 50% of a spheroid when looking at it straight on (or that a light source illuminates 50% of the spheroid).

There are several angles that account for this when using 4 points. Especially when accounting for the sun being millions of miles away. (and even when putting the photographer, moon, earth in a straight line.

Also, upon further inspection you can see that the right side of both are darker. This would mean that the sun is behind the photographer and most likely to the left enough that you can still see almost all of both surfaces, but the moon does not cast a shadow.

I'm not even saying the picture is real desu. Just that this picture is 100% possible and happens all the time, rather than what you are proposing, that the moon should cast a shadow.

The picture showing the Earth and Moon was taken from a long way away with a very narrow focal length.

There are only certain times when you get an eclipse because the Moon's orbit has an inclination from the ecliptic of about 5 degrees.

>we know everything about the cameras. which is also more proof that we didn't go to the moon. the film itself could not work in the -320 degrees of space.
>what is the temperature in the capsule?
>what is sunlight?
>what is a vacuum?

Anything in space and in sunlight has trouble shedding heat, not freezing, because space is a vacuum. For the same reason talking about space as if it's "cold" or "frozen" is pants on head retarded. Temperature is molecular motion, and there are no moving molecules in a vacuum to measure.

Naturally anything in the temperature controlled capsule would be room temperature. Exiting into space would not instantly freeze it. In shadow it would slowly cool. In sunlight your concern would actually be getting too hot over time because there's little conduction and no convection to carry array the building heat from sunlight exposure.

>film is also extremely sensitive to radiation.
The highest speed films they used would experience a very light fogging at most given their total exposure for the trip. Something that could easily be compensated for in development. It would be like using a batch of film that was a year or two old. None of the slow speed films, including the color films, would have had any perceptible fogging.

9

Exactly.

There's a reason space suits are white and have giant cooling backpacks. If they were worried about being cold they'd be jet black and have a three bar fire instead.

I don't have a softball and golf ball nearby, so I can't check for myself. Kudos to you for having both of those so readily available.

I can understand a discrepancy between 4 points. I'll admit that it's possible given the slight angle and distance no shadow would be cast.

idk user, maybe my initial position doesn't stand, but this shit just doesn't look right to me. I'll keep looking into it.

So cool.

...