If the moon is 1/4 the size of earth why does every single photograph from moonwalks look like it's about 30m long?

If the moon is 1/4 the size of earth why does every single photograph from moonwalks look like it's about 30m long?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/VqdyeYXi580
youtube.com/watch?v=2sznGuUZgS4
youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8
youtube.com/watch?v=XBjOs-egFMs
youtube.com/watch?v=BK-uatwOOeA
aulis.com/stereoparallax/
youtu.be/Zl8QOstaCiI
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1072484/pg1&mem=
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because Earth is flat, and only 120m long
Retard

they in a crater nigga

Who gives a fuck about the moon, sandniggers are planning to ruin Mars for the white man

youtu.be/VqdyeYXi580

Because the photos are fake, we went to the moon that happened but we didn't use the pics from there for 2 reasons. 1: we made fakes in case we didn't succesfully make it there to win the space race 2. we found structures on the moon. This is why Stanley Kupric faked the photos

>what are craters
fuck, user.

We've never been to the moon.

...

...

also
>judging distance/depth on a 2D photo with a nearly featureless environment.

The moon is about 1/4 the diameter, but that does not mean it is 1/4 the size. The volume of the moon is far less than 1/4 of the Earth.

Volume of a sphere = 4/3πr^3

Earth is about 82,000,000,000 cubic miles
Moon is 1,600,000,000 cubic miles

The moon is about 2% the Earth in volume.

Humans have never been to the moon.

why indeed

>ITT a bunch of conspiracy retards try to judge the distance of the horizon from photograhs

Moon landing deniers and flat earthers piss me off so god damn much. They are just like creationists. No amount of evidence will ever sway them. They refuse to admit they are wrong. Prove them wrong on something and they don't even aknowledge it, they just move on to their next bullshit point as if the last one didn't matter. The next point is the real checkmate argument. Prove that 2nd point wrong and they bring up a 3rd point. The first two didn't really matter... Repeat ad nauseam until people just give up and stop replying, then claim victory.

Pulling my teeth with pliers is more productive than arguing against flat earthers, moon landing deniers, and young earth creationists.

At least if I pulled all my teeth I could convince myself I accomplished something.

because those pictures are fake

>Consulting with some of the world's leading experts on shooting video is somehow a conspiracy

Humans never went to the moon. The whole thing was fake. The furthest we have gotten is the low sat orbit.

All images were faked.

occultists doing their occult work in order to deceive mankind certainly is

This a political board, not a "I'm a fucking absolute retard and can't judge distances through photographs" board.

kys, shithead.

Could you give me a rundown on this theory? Don't disbelieve it, just intrigued.

Serious answer: because you have no point of reference in order the judge distance.

ohlookitsthisthreadagain.jpg

WTF do you think your picture is proving? It's some sort of conspiracy that NASA built mock ups of the lunar lander as prototypes and took them out to the desert that has similar terrain to the Moon?

Why even bother with mock ups and prototypes if it was all going to be faked in a studio? Why would prototypes and mockups of stage props be needed?

>Humans never went to the moon.
>The whole thing was fake.
>The furthest we have gotten is the low sat orbit.
>All images were faked.

Thats funny, then i guess every telescope ever made is fake too because anyone with a decent telescope can see the landing sites from their back yard

>i cant afford one, so I'll just keep believing man never went there...

You can't see the landing sites with consumer grade telescopes. But they have been observed from hi res photos of Moon mapping satellites.

The Moon is about 230,000 miles away. You can't see something only a few yards across from 230,000 miles away using any normal telescope.

it's proving the involvement of occult societies, who knows what they were doing with those props. maybe it had ritualistic value, they're occultists after all

When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense that we can see any detail in an object supposedly so far away.

Duh moons flat too wetahd

You can too if you have a good telescope. A good one isnt a fucking $20 mead at walmart. Youre gonna have to spend a few grand.

wait who recorded that

...

The detail we do see are massive craters miles across. It makes perfect sense.

My bachelors and PhD are in microbiology. I'm an expert when it comes to seeing fine details at high magnification. Just like how a virus cannot be seen using a normal light microscope using standard optics (glass lenses), you also can't see tiny details from 230,000 miles away. But you can see bacteria which are thousands of times the size of viruses with ease. Seeing bacteria with a microscope is like seeing a large crater from 230,000 miles away.

>super grainy footage that has probably been reformatted 20X from the original
>evidence NASA is fake

Why do you faggots always use a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy as your proof?

...

FBI analyst from Quantico, Peter Hyatt, who believed the moon landing to be real, analyzed one of Neil Armstrong's interviews and came to the conclusion that he's lying. Now he's more open minded :)

youtube.com/watch?v=2sznGuUZgS4

And?

learn to use grammar properly, you fucking sub-nigger

With no atmosphere everything on the moon looks super crisp. There's no blurring near the horizon to make it look far away.

there's tons of this shit but you people usually disregard it, just like the destroyed moon tapes, telemetry data, technology, fake moon rocks, the list goes on and on

youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8

Wrong, it's closer to 1/5 the surface area of earth.

they have a tendency to withhold the truth from the profane

All the astronauts were strange. They had to have basically zero fear. Their responses are not normal. Niel Armstrong recovered the Gemini vehicle after having a stuck thruster in space. A thruster stuck on and gotthe craft spinning at almost 180 RPM (3 times a second) and used up almost all his fuel before he got it disabled and got the ship under control. His pulse hardle even rose.

Neil Armstrong ejected from the lunar lander simulator craft only tenths of a second before it was too late and he would have died. He didn't even take the rest of the day off. He was like "yeah, so what?"

The dude was not normal. That's why they sent him to the moon. He is the type of guy that can stare certain death in the eye and not get nervous.

youtube.com/watch?v=XBjOs-egFMs

Because there's no atmosphere, and even on earth the furthest you can see at sea-level is only like 3 miles to the horizon, factor in the moons smaller circumference and there's your answer. probably less than a mile horizon

Hubble doesn't even have enough resolution to see the landing site from orbit retard.

My dad has a magazine order telescope that he'd show me the sites with as I grew up. 12 and 15 are particularly easy to find and observe. That thing got really good detail on jupiter, saturn, and venus as well.

Hubble is tuned to see deep space, it isnt a microscope

Who did they leave behind to man the camera?

Im pretty sure they faked a bunch of the pictures, but we actually landed on the moon(if that makes sense).

yea, true heroes :)
disregard all the fake shit and lies they throw at you

youtube.com/watch?v=BK-uatwOOeA

The moon isn't a smooth parking lot

He was full of shit. If you could see them they would be a single tiny spec. You couldn't make out any detail. You wouldn't be able to say "there is the lander, there is the abandoned rover" etc.

>if the "moon"
stopped reading

Haha, that poindexter getting his head in the miniature's shot.

Stereoscopic method of verifying the Apollo lunar images
aulis.com/stereoparallax/

>copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy as your proof?
They destroyed the original lunar landing footage. They "taped over" it. We only have video cameras that were pointed at the screen pf it when it was broadcast.

You can see the tracks and reflective objects easily, poorfag.

>Implying that a rocket of known thrust lifting a known weight in a known gravity won't accelerate at a known rate
>Implying that a camera can't be placed at a specific distance and be pre-programed to raise at a certain rate

It's high school math to figure out how the camera needs to move.

The picture I was replying to was of the space shuttle, but nice deflection.

How wide are the landing sights?

Also, even if they take a picture from the top of a hill or something where they can see a good distance, there is no haze from atmospheric light scattering and the terrain is all samey, which makes it difficult to judge distance.

I have a hard time believing you're both in uni and too stupid to understand the differences between looking at something far away and looking at something tiny. Electron microscopes are required because some shit is too small for light to properly interact with. Electrons are smaller and interact better.

>high school math

And those dumb ass murimutts had plenty of help to figure that one out.

WE

>aulis.com/stereoparallax/
This is an AMAZING link. Great info user.

yeah that totally fucking happened
looks fucking authentic

youtu.be/Zl8QOstaCiI

shit lines up. Doesnt mean the earth is flat though retards. It means that we have crazy technology which is stupidly as simple as what Nikola Tesla was doing.

Bullshit

They are still small and hard to see from hi res images taken from Chinese satellites only a few miles up from the surface. Your dad lied to you and you were too young to know any better.

I'm not saying the moon landings were fake. Just that no surface optic can make out those details, period. The magnification is too great and the atmosphere causes too much distortion. Even a telescope on the surface that uses lasers to measure the atmospheric distortion and a computer to correct for it can't see that stuff.

Bill Cooper's mystery babylon is next level.

That wasn't my point at all. My point is that glass optics can only magnify so much, period.

It was an analogy.

>could do it in 1959
>can't do it in 2017
>destroyed the fucking technology which is fucking more than 50 years old and somehow cant be recreated
and people still fucking believe it like sheep

That was an incredibly normal thing for gov and business to do back then, short sighted but not a conspiracy. That shit was fucking expensive.

This guy sources all the greats. Including some founding fathers believe it or not

sure:
>jews want people to stop believing in Jesus Christ
>jews invent evolution
>jews invent outer space
>this makes the goyim think they are not special, just apes that evolved in one out of billions of planets all by chance
back to space
>jews control both the USA and USSR, different factions of jews but jews the same
>jews start making space race, great way to take money from the tax paying goyim to further fund their communist revolutions
>they need a show stopper since the goys lose interest in rockets circling the globe
>they reach the moon, somehow manage to fit computers that would take up full floors in universities in a little room, covered with golden aluminum foil, oxygen and food supplies lmao
>walk around the moon and do some stupid shit come back
>theres nothing up there so we wont go back lmao
and its been like that for what 50 years? lmao all these advances in technology and computing which should make a trip to the moon cheaper than in the 60's yet we've never gone back
and not only that, no other country has even tried to reach the moon
in 50 some years
who's the silly goy now?

nice link
the sad thing is people who believe in the landing will skip over that shit and ignore it

A bad analogy. With a high enough exposure you can see the fine details on a rabbits asshole 230,000 miles away, which isnt possible with small objects.

>we've never been back
>flag
What's this "we" shit, hernandez jimenez?

Thank you.

si fly

The Van Allen Belt is enough to prove we didn't go to the moon in 1969

Hey guise we only just figured out it has multiple layers but in 1969 we sent our guys
up through it and back down through it wrapped in gold tin foil and they didn't fry or get cancer what a miracle :^)

when you bring your shitposts you're not bringing your best

RIP in peace Randy Lundgren, Apollo XI Mission Photographer, (1938-1969)

why waste them on mexico?

>calling the people of the only nation to EVER land on the moon/planets subhuman

Stfu snow nigger go fap to mohammed fuckin
ur mom

>when youre mexican and try to include yourself in the accomplishments of other nations because yours has never accomplished anything besides menudo and tacos

>mexican astronauts

This pretty much confirms the fakery doesn't it?

...

say what you will about sandniggers, at least they keep their women under control

That's actually a wave in the distance to make it look flat

See that footage looks ridiculous, but what makes me think it could be genuine is how the dust just flys around like crazy. Go outside, find some sand and see if it flys up behind you like that if you kick some back.

what the fuck Mexico

Plenty of website that expose the fakery, I would especially recommend AULIS, very informative and thorough breakdown of the Apollo hoax. Basically the whole 'lunar' escapade was filmed here on Earth on a sound stage and some say Stanley Kubrick filmed it after the powers that be were impressed with his work on A Space Odyssey.

well, how long is the average soundstage or movie set? like I give a shit what some goy things about my production. this is show business, boy.

Your life must suck, needing websites run by tinfoil hats thinking for you

As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.

Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024 in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters)at the Moon's distance. In visible light, it's0.05, or closer to 300 feet. Given that the largest piece of equipment left on the Moon after each mission was the 17.9-foot-high by 14-foot-wide Lunar Module, you can see the problem.

You obviously have no idea how telescopes work and yet you preach your bullshit.

@OP

retard alert retard alert

here are some images from 30m earth too.. look familiar?

You know that when you make a fantastic sounding claim the onus is on you to prove it.

So while the onus is on flat earthers and YECs to prove their claim the onus is also on people who think man has actually walked on the Moon to prove their claims.

...

It's true. Learn about angular resolution.
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1072484/pg1&mem=