Why did we argue was Apollo 11 moon landing faked or not if there were six manned moon landings?

Why did we argue was Apollo 11 moon landing faked or not if there were six manned moon landings?

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/
youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4
history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html
ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/CR188427.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_meteorite
youtu.be/flBfxNTUIns?t=172
youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I guess because retarded here believe in Alex jones being a legitimate news source.

Nobody is disputing whether or no we landed on the Moon. They are disputing whether or not the Moon is flat.

gonna need a redpill on the flat moon

DAILY REMINDER that spherecuckoldry is not tolerated here and all spherefags should kill themselves

...

...

>what is atmosphere

I'm gonna pretend it's just some totally boring question that someone really wanted to know for real.

Yep mars rover fake too

Because the Soviets didn't.

Same reason this solar pannel cleaned its self. Martians.

idk, why do they hide the holes near the poles?

>Being this clueless about science.
Dust doesn't swirl unless you have an atmosphere, retard. It's a science thing.

What is it like being THAT full of shit?

5 manned landings..
everybody in this thread is stupid.
i am not.

i enjoy a hearty laugh.

wat is gravity

...

First I have to know if the left really is a place in Ireland or if the right really is an official NASA photo. I'm especially skeptical after I've seen moon hoaxters claim that the famous Schmitt photo from Apollo 17 has. The Moon that was added later (it wasn't) or that NASA claims that Collins's photo from the tests for Gemini 10 was supposed to be a real photo of his spacewalk (they don't). All just as real as the historical quotes that are actually fake that Sup Forums loves to post so much.

He forgot one thing. Where are the stars? Not a single picture of stars. That's because any armature astronomer can pin point location in universe using triangulation. 1960s lacked computer technology to accurately simulate stars viewed from the moon.

Except GAS exiting the rocket booster is GAS and will blow dust.

Don't believe your lieing eye. Believe what government tells you.

considering there's visible grass on the right, it's pretty unlikely it's from NASA

Right, but the gas is blowing down on the landing strut. It can only blow particles AWAY from it.
Sorry I've got to be harsh, but if you think you've caught them in a lie, it's going to need to be something way more subtle than that. If they had faked it, they sure as fuck would have thought of that dust.

Exposure time. Sir Patrick Moore asked the same only he knew the answer and that's how he knew it was real.

> we landed on the moon in the 60's walked around and relaunched into space

> 40 years later somehow GM can't make a decent car but gets billions in subsidy from the us government.

Yup, seems legit.

Where does the dust go after engine shutdown? Slowly float down and cover the space craft

OK OK YOU BUNCH OF FUKWITS I'LL SPELL IT OUT SLOWLY SO EVEN YOU AMERILARDS COULD UNDERSTAND...

** LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THE SUCCESS OF MANNED LAUNCHS **

DISTANCE TO SPACE - 100 miles

USSR space program success rate 7%
USA space program success rate 13%

*** NOW LETS HAVE A LOOK AT THE MOON LANDING PROGRAM ***

DISTANCE TO THE MOON - 350,000 miles

USA moon landing program success rate 100%

> 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

IM-FUCKING-POSSIBRU

NOT 1 FUCKING DEATH AFTER LAUNCH..
and then how many fucking repeated trips back there!!???

>don't reply to this unless you address the stats and the impossibility of 100% success (yes I know 2 faggots died in practice, more likely killed for threatening to expose the 4 trillion tax dollars stolen via NASA )

This camera is so great it can show a astront in the SHADOW of the lander. Why not stars? Not one picture of sky without an atmosphere. Stars would've been brilliant. We put a car on a moon but no picture of stars.

How is the dust going to come BACK after it was blown away without wind?

What is exposure time. Go outside with your smartphone and take a picture of the sky, you will notice no stars. Increase exposure a shit ton and keep ansolutely still for a few seconds and youll get stars

or, you know, the gravity is 1/6 of earths and there's no atmosphere so they fly away in a parabolic arc

Again go with a smart phone outside and try. Stand in the shadow of a light with the sky visible and note how it is black

This

>the missions where people didn't yet know how to build space craft failed
>the missions where people knew how to build space craft succeded

Not a single picture. I'm just pointing out the technology existed to take pictures of object in low light.

What in the fuck?

Cant believe I had to take the time to make this because you people are so stupid

>Wat is the challenger?

100 miles - 7 to 13% success rate

350,000 miles - 100% success rate (then repeated, then repeated, then repeated.. )

>statistics don't lie
>if there's an gigantic anomaly there's a cause
>there is only 1 explanation for this cause

the press conference after was weird af

“But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?

more like this

So youre telling me the thrust and dust went from 100 to 0 instantly? No winding down causing the dust to be thrown less distance? I'm sure the last little fart of the thrusters before completely shutting off would have knocked something up in the air or 2 feet in all directions

It gets even better. Samples allegedly taken from the Moon end up being petrified wood.

nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/

The lander's descent was largely horizontal, and throttling down the whole time, by the time it did turn upright and land it was kicking up very little dust, most of which was thrown outward or impacted the lander and then settled below it.

I shouldn't have bothered trying to draw something on a track pad.

As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module’s landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down.

i kekd

it looks like it blew all that shit away and its only one solid rock surface under it.
also theres less gravity on the moon. what was blown away by thrust probably isnt coming back down. or at least not for a long time.
also it did most of its slowing down while in a disintegrating orbit of the moon before the lander rotated to the landing position. it was moving the exact same speed the moon rotates, craft rotates over and slowly comes down due to the low gravitational pull of the moon.

The crater argument goes on the premise that the moon is like a desert but then doesnt question why the lander legs didnt just sink into a layer of moon dust.

So, here's a pic of the moon lander on the surface of the moon. The moon lander has a decent engine on the BOTTOM of it, his can be seen by jewgling "moon lander diagram"
>why is the no blast crater under the moon lander?
>why is the no moon dust on the landing gear? It's spotless!

This alone is proof enough it's all fucking fake. They never went to the moon. It's all bullshit.

...

why did the rover show a fuck ton of dust being kicked up

youtube.com/watch?v=5cKpzp358F4

so youre saying none of this loose dust would end up in the footpads? of the rocket powered lander?

Both images are on Earth. The one on the right was trying to show how easy it would be to make Earth seem like Mars. Sorry m8. Don't stop searching though

implying that would leave dust free footpads

it's funny how moon hoaxers use their actual pictures to show why they didnt land on the moon.

yet you believers will post out of context graphics to explain away the bullsht without at ant point referring to the evidence.

...

you're adding in early failures in rockets specifically the precursor to the atlas rockets and the atlas rockets themselves, and there were several test runs prior to the actual moon landings. Apollo 8 for example, was the second test prior to the moon landings and took that famous photograph of the earth rising above the moon.
I would like to remind you that there were fatalities in the Apollo program
>Apollo 1
take your conspiracy shit out of here if you can't even make good points about it instead of "muh test success"

...

Says right on the picture the winds cleared them up

I don't see how those are related

Did you know Apollo 13 failed

>why is the no blast crater under the moon lander?

Why would there be?

1969, manned craft, 3 days to the moon
2010, unmanned chinese chang'e 3 takes 5 days to get there
2025, upcoming manned asteroid intercept mission will take 8 days to go half way .

radiation was discovered by the fact that it damages film
there is radiation on the moon
there is no damage to the film

the size of rocket and fuel required to lift-off from the moon and accelerate to orbit simply couldn't have fit in that tiny lander
the aforementioned rocket also is silent inside during lift-off, cannot be heard during astronaut radio chatter

i surmise that the astronauts were hypnotized during their training, and made to believe that the practice run in the studio was real

My question is would the earth be the same size of the moon, from earth, on the moon? I suspect it would be quite larger than pictured in your image.

This is a photograph taken next to the core of Chernobyl. How can it exist?

see all the spots
radiation damage
also they had digital cameras by then iirc
actual film is a chemical coating that reacts with light and other energetic particles

The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. The few days in Lunar orbit would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most.

Chernobyl produced about 80 mSv/ second after the incident. A little bit less ten years later, when that photo was taken. Still, one second next to that thing exposed the film to around 160 times more radiation than a day on the Moon

Hypnotized astronauts say what?? Is that why buzz looks geeked out on tv?

they took thousands of photos, so many in fact that on average 1 every 30 seconds for the time spent on the surface.
surely this would have meant swapping the rolls of film out somehow (hasselblats were embedded in the suits)
somehow, not a single spec on any pics
have previously heard a claim that the film was kept in a lead box while on route, this doesn't explain how they did film swaps from the camera

would explain alot of their weird behaviour and reclusiveness

it only requires 1.72 km/s to leave the moon's gravity well.

Achieving this on the moon is WAY easier than on earth, because there is no atmosphere and far far far less gravity.

There's no need to do guesswork when all this stuff is easy to find with a simple search

history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html
ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/CR188427.pdf

The radiation amount would not damage the film to any meaningful degree even during swaps.

explain this

1.72 km/s
that's fast for a tiny rocket
it's NASA's word that's in question here, you can't site NASA, i think in full sun, no atmosphere, no magnetic field, the radiation would be huge

What exactly do you want to be explained?

>cite

> i think in full sun, no atmosphere, no magnetic field, the radiation would be huge
> i think

I already posted the exact numbers. One day on the Moon is the equivalent of 50-150 days on Earth

They used Ektachrome film for the mission, Radiation wouldn't have ruined it, but it would messed with the contrast levels in the photos, lightening them.

This could be compensated by reducing the aperture of the shutter, so photos would be slightly darker before the radiation finished them.

The dirt, faggot. Gravity

any idea how many frames per roll and how you would swap out the film?
trying to figure out how many times film rolls would have to be swapped in order to take all those photos

...

...

Yes, the moon has gravity

Film was in cartridges, custom made by Hasselblad for lunar mission. The cameras were left behind to save weight. I imagine the Chinese will bring them back to sell on Ebay. Either that or they will say they looked but nothing was there.

>1.72 km/s
>that's fast for a tiny rocket

That's really not that fast for a 4,700 kg vessal.
The lunar lander had a TWR of 2.124, and enough fuel for 2200 m/s of Delta-V (2,353 kg of Aerozine 50 fuel / nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer)

Earth is flat, moon is round, all the stars are lights, and physicists are a satanic trick.

They had 3 each, they were all in self0contained canisters with motorized loading devices as park of their suits.

You load the cart, set shutter aperture, exposure time, and shoot.
Each astronaut had 3 canisters on person. Each canister could take 200 photos.

>The cameras were left behind to save weight.
really? a pound? sounds fishy
weren't they built in to the suits?

Dr William Thompkins... They met loads of Extra terrestrial reptilians up there... Like... Loads. So they had to falsify it.

...

Can you see how bright it is? Do we see the stars during the day?

The National Academy of Space Actors have been trolling us for years. Nobody who has given this subject any serious study in the last few years is buying the official narrative on the 'moon landings' anymore. Stop feeling the trolls.

ty

They left lots of equipment behind for that reason. Anything and everything no longer needed. Except, of course, all the 'souvenirs' they brought along to sell back on Earth.

lol

...

We still have our revolutionary documents from almost 250 years ago stored and preserved.

But we cant find 700 cartons of film from less then 50 years ago.

Faked or not, there IS something going on, that is huge, that they want to keep hidden.

Where are the cavitation bubbles if this is underwater?

at least some of those souvenirs were bs
also some people don't know that we can find moon rocks here on earth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_meteorite
nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/

Those aren't greenscreen problems that camera compression artifacts.
youtu.be/flBfxNTUIns?t=172

Greenscreen problems would look like a part of their hair, possibly clothing goes clear or turns a slight green on the edge.

Then why did the astro-nots never think to simply take a photograph of the stars themselves? Would it not have been an incredible sight, considering the lack of atmosphere? Michael Collins didn't even recall seeing any stars... youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0