I think I had enough of the shitstorms happening when someone post something space related and a bunch of morons said stuff like "The moon landing was faked" or that "We didnt get into the space."
So I wanted to share a couple of evidence to them covering all of the usual "hoax" ideas:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
youtu.be
youtube.com
nasa.gov
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
archive.4plebs.org
twitter.com
Oh my sweet summer child
Sup Forums is mostly retards with the attention span of a 4 year old, no one here researches anything, a jpg with some arrows made on paint is enough evidence for them, I congratulate you for trying to do some serious discussion, but watch as you thread is drowned with utter retardation if it manages to stay alive against the tsunami of shitposting. threads
Sadly, I still appreciate your comment user, you're a nice humanbeing.
Here, have a kitty
>being this stupid
>being this new
it's shills, faggot. the cabal needs "wacky theories" associated with this site.
lurk more.
cute
have a bump
keep fight for truth
I think you guys are in the wrong timeline.
Also, what are your thoughts on the distinct lack of damage to the Lunar surface directly underneath the ROCKET on the Eagle lander?
Any thoughts on the Apollo photos with seemingly competing light sources?
Sources cited: you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
t. Some guy who thinks we went to the Moon and STILL faked some stuff for unknown reasons.
nigga they throttle down as they come in. the rocket's output at landing is only enough to prevent the spacecraft from being damaged.
All of those were simple landers with no men on board. The lolner lander was not constructed well enough nor did it hold enough space to store the correct volume of fuel to get back up into low orbit.
Sorry conspiracy theorists but Wikipedia CLEARLY states at en.wikipedia.org
As he said, they dont needed a lot of thrust to fully stop the lander, they already almost reached the minimal speed posible, if they just used a little more of thrust they would have broke the gravitational pull of the moon.
the flag appears in front of the crosshair....
you don't need an ECE degree to know that was photoshopped
Even Alex CIA Jones says "we went to the moon but couldn't use the real footage" lol
I rest my case.
Any evidence of both of those claims?
>evidence
Prove any of these things happened, you faggot. You can't, unless we some day are able to send nanosats around the moon and send a bunch of pics back.
Prove that those didnt happen.
Explain this.
I see a...rock over other rock?
Watching Space X's rocket land they always maintain thrust until they fully land. There would've been dust kicked up by them on the moon. Instead the surface below the landers is immaculate, not even a set of secondary imprints from the slight bounce(s) that would've happened as it touched down.
Then theres the whole inquiry into the landing where they all acted guilty and ashamed as fuck, suttering over simple questions. I forget who but one of the main astronauts became a total recluse after. The shame of being involved in so grand a lie must've been too much for him.
>mooncucks
When will they learn?
Nothing will come of this thread my goys, why don't you all get some sleep?
Can you share more information about those two pictures? Like names of the original pictures?
>that file name
Nigga what
If you can't tell I'm not taking this seriously. The photographers in question are an unknown variable here.
Basically, there are secret space programs and the mass public is fucking stumped.
>but why would muh patriotic astronauts lie to 'Merica
To screw the Soviets
Even as something as elementary as Occams Razor would automatically point to them faking it rather then actually manning a mission. Everything to gain and none of the effort. Why the hell wouldnt they? This is the same America that was poisoning medication supplies and dosing the frenchies with LSD at the time.
>lading of the earth
Dude, you know that lading on the moon requires a LOT less of thrust to land or take off?
youtu.be
Take that for example, notice that the lader needed just a small short thrust to move away of the surfarce, I can get into actual math if you want more accurate information.
I still find hard if the landings were fake, why didnt the soviets prove otherwise with evidence?
Moons gravity is 20% of earths. The calculations for how much fuel they would need to descend and ascend are fairly straight forward and the lolner lander did not possess the required capacity to hold enough fuel to do so.
Not to mention now NASA says they cant even do it today, because "technology was destroyed" lel. How fucking dumb do you have to be to buy their bullshit kid?
You can't even prove satellites exist fag. Nice try though
L E A R N T H I S
E
A
R
N
T
H
I
S
>Cellphones
>GPS
>Looking at them with a powerful telescope
>Launchs every month of television/communication satellites.
>Satellital pictures
>Etc
>onus probandi
I don't need to, you fallacious faggot. You are the one making baseless claims and failing to prove them.
How so? Also why you're so afraid to hide your country?
So far I explained everything they asked
Op is a uneducated normie faggot. Sup Forums is politically Incorrect, not politically correct. Get it?
Of course NASA and all the other space agencies fake everything space related. Its all part of the NWO agenda.
Now take a long fucking look at this pic and then delete this thread
A bit of rock on mars with a red circle around it?
Idk about the moon, but for sure Mars was nuked 300k years ago. Just look at the huge scar on that planet. Whatever did that is probably still out there
What is exactly wrong with this picture?
>Of course NASA and all the other space agencies fake everything space related. Its all part of the NWO agenda.
Why would the space agency of the URSS at the time didnt said that the landings were fake? They could have easily proven it and leave the US as liars
All those equations and numbers are all just theory and can not be empirically proven. Like gravity. Some scientists say it exits some don't. Very very little of science is 100% empirically provable since the world we live in changes so much.
Because obviously the Soviets never went there either
Two stage lander, simply as that.
And when did nasa said that they cant do it today? you got evidence of it? any tweets or video?
The soviets where first, why did the US didnt prove that they were lying?
What do you mean you dont believe this tent, I mean this brilliant piece of engineering made it all the way to the moon and launched the astronauts back? What are you some kinda conspearasee goy ?
>he still believes the cold war hoax
Good goy. Russia space program totally real! They've always been an enemy of the west
Stay frosty my friends
Look at it a while longer, think about the size of the moon, the size of the earth. Think about it for a moment. Use your own reasoning abilities to figure out that what you are looking at is 100% fake CGI imagery. The moon is way to far away and they made the earth way to small. Now compare this image with this video released from NASA.
youtube.com
Because they are all in on it. That is why it is called a NWO. and only freemasons in the USA are allowed to get anywhere near "space" whatever it is.
>materials exposed to less than atmospheric conditions don't need to be conventionally rigid
Does this upset you or something, M80
Do you ever looked at the Saturn V rocket? It was protected at launch, after the lading it returned to the orbit, where the other part of the lander was obirting, they transfered the crew from one to other, they de-orbited the part one of the lander and send the part two back to the earth.
Exactly
>free masonry started in 1400s
>Pythagoras born in 400BC
>post pic drawn by John Augustus Knapp a tarot card drawer
>Pythagoras some how now Freemason
Freemasonry really started 40 A.D. when the jewish sanhedrin created a group of zealot jews to combat the growing christian sect.
Pythagoras was not a "Freemason" but the masons consider his beliefs to be beneficial to their cult.They later used his "theory" to back up their globe theory.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Here you have the source of the official page of that expefic set of pictures:
nasa.gov
I've read this before and you are simply lying to yourself if you are convinced that the two images are of equal distance apart. A child can tell that they are not. Which means they are not real but fake.
youtube.com
The moon is much closer than we have been told.
youtube.com
Troll harder.
>literally believing in fairy tales
pretty fucking pathetic desu senpai
The positioning thrusters , at least thats what I assume they're supposed to be, are not even attached symmetrically, kek.
I never said that the both images are equal distance apart. Do you know how far away that satellite is and how zoomed in it has to be to take that photo? Remember that if the earth were the size of a basket ball and the moon a baseball, the moon is about 20 feet away, this satellite is orbiting about 50 feet away. 200,000 miles to 1,000,000 miles. Think of how small the earth would look to you if you were over a million miles away? TINY. Take a piece of hole punched paper and hold it at arms length. The earth would easily fit in the size of one of those holes.
This satellite was literally designed to take photos of the earth, that explains why the earth is on focus and the moon dont looks exactly that good.
RCS thrusters, used for orbital maneuver in orbit, they are placed symmetrically, it's just hard to tell for the angle of the picture, but you can see the other pair of them
If the supposed satellite was 200,000 miles away then the earth would be much smaller and the moon would be much smaller too.
Don't you get it man. You can't see the earth the size it is in this picture from the moon.
THE EARTH SHOULD BE COVERING THE ENTIRE BACKGROUND IT IF WERE REAL.
See pic related
>he thinks if he keeps defending (((NASA))) on Sup Forums he'll eventually be accepted as white
U wot m8?
>Ifunny
>No vids, sites, more pictures or anything.
Sounds fair! Also I dont defend the NASA, they're just the most big english speaking space agency and the one that I always check.
You are proving my point for me.
The right photo is completely fake.
There is something called perspective, and you need to keep in mind that they dont used the same camera, the one in the right is cleary more zoomed, looking for the terraing.
"The high-resolution Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) on LRO takes black-and-white images, while the lower resolution Wide Angle Camera (WAC) takes color images, so you might wonder how we got a high-resolution picture of the Earth in color. Since the spacecraft, Earth, and moon are all in motion, we had to do some special processing to create an image that represents the view of the Earth and moon at one particular time. The final Earth image contains both WAC and NAC information. WAC provides the color, and the NAC provides high-resolution detail."
The zoom or the camera have nothing to do with the fact that the Earth can not in any circumstance be that size. From that picture it would seem that the Earth is almost the size of the moon!
Nope, all the opposite, it perfectly looks like that, you can recreate it any time using Geogebra if you want to.
*Celestia my bad, I always get it messed with geogebra
Look at pic related. Jewgle says the moon can fit into the earth 50 times... that means the earth is much much bigger than the moon so how can it look that small if you're standing on the surface of the moon. ALL YOU WOULD SEE IS EARTH IN FRONT OF YOU.
I swear to christ, I hate all of you because your best piece of evidence is "it just doesn't...look right!" You sound like a fucking woman.
pic related, astronauts fixing a satellite. You're the expert here though, it's fake right?
Who the fuck said that you can make the moon fit into the earth 50 times?
Thank you kind sir
Hey you dumb nigger, when they said "technology was destroyed" they meant rebuilding the Saturn V, not simply going back to the moon. Idiot.
Yeah, apart of that, there isnt any real point to going into the moon again, with the actual technology at least.
>any real point
fuck it, it's cool. and muh hydrogen-3.
Getting into orbit is super fucking easy. Getting past the radiation belts, landing on another celestial boy, and then blasting off from it again and returning safely isnt even in the same class of difficulty. NASA says its impossible today
google.
Isn't the way the sun is hitting the earth wrong? Where it's lit up seems off. What part of Earth is that ?
fisheye lenses are a NASAtards best friend
>during a solar eclipse the shadow cast by the moon is only a couple miles long
Really activates those almonds!
Oh, I see now. You succeeded is rustling my jimmies.
Why can't you ever see any of the thousands of satellites orbiting earth in these pics?
>s-space is totally real goys
Many of them orbit at altitudes far above what we can see. The ISS is visible because it is at an altitude of a few hundred miles- and it's so large.Communications satellites orbit at an altitude of over 22 thousand miles above the surface.
Light bending due to gravity not something you know off. Large light actually shining around the object not a thing you know off?
>muh gravity
The spacefags goto answer for everything
i don't get it. It's just a reflection of another astronaut.
You are dumb.
look closer genius you can clearly see he's in scuba gear not astronaut gear