So Sup Forums, did the moon landing happen?

So Sup Forums, did the moon landing happen?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, the moon is just the opposite side of the sun.

How can you land on a hologram?

anyone with any knowledge of technology knows it was impossible then and now. I could list a hundred reason why it never happened. But I wont because you cant argue with brainwashed fucktards. Same with religion its been drilled in their head so long they cant reason...Never happened...Show me one high powered image from a telescope showing some moon buggy still there...Pro Tip..you cant

It didnt. It was just a political stunt to oppress women

Yes.

Even by Sup Forums standards, this is impressively brainless.

Anyone with any knowledge of technology knows it was possible then and now. I could list a hundred reason why it definitely happened. But I wont because you cant argue with brainwashed fucktards. Same with religion its been drilled in their head so long they cant reason... It happened

op here, I don't believe it happened I'm in an argument right now on if it is true or not so help me out with some of those facts would ya

>fucktard

Maybe?

...

battery power, how did a tinfoil craft carry enough lead acid batteries to fight off the extreme cold and heat and power computers, oxygen systems etc...didnt happen.

Fuck off nasa shill

>powered image from a telescope showing some moon buggy still there..

Here you go:

Apollo 14 landing area, photographed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter telescope:

Van allen radiation belt....google it

FAKE NEWS

China never did it

that image dont show shit

Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that landed the first two humans on the Moon. Mission commander Neil Armstrong and pilot Buzz Aldrin, both American, landed the lunar module Eagle on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface six hours later on July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC; Aldrin joined him about 20 minutes later. They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft, and collected 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg) of lunar material to bring back to Earth. Michael Collins piloted the command module Columbia alone in lunar orbit while they were on the Moon's surface. Armstrong and Aldrin spent just under a day on the lunar surface before rendezvousing with Columbia in lunar orbit.

...

>Gnorts, Mr Alien.

;)

How did we get moondust? That stuff can only be found on the moon, and can't be replicated even today in a lab or found anywhere on Earth.

Not user. Great rebuttal mate ;)

Yes. Want proof? Russians

>battery power, how did a tinfoil craft carry enough lead acid batteries to fight off the extreme cold and heat and power computers, oxygen systems etc...

I presume you have never read about the existence of a fuel cell. - a technology that's been around since the 1890's.

Hydrogen and Oxygen go in from cryogenic tanks and electricity (about 27 volts), and water are produced.

3 of them powered each apollo mission.

>i can post hundred reasons why it didnt happen
u cant post 1

how does a lander with a 10,000 pound rocket pointed straight down not create a huge crater in a powdery surface and the pictures of the lander show no dust on the gold foil covering the legs. In near zero gravity the dust cloud would of lingered for ever...FAKE

what were they doing for 6 hours before stepping out?

you're dumb m8, deal with it.

Okay, I did.

>Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas.

>In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

>that image dont show shit

Translation: "I cant even understand what I'm looking at. so it must have never happened."

Scientific illiteracy at work...

Probably not. Not worth arguing about though.

...

why are we still using fossil fuel then?

Whos the brainwashed here?
How do u explain those mirrors on the moons surface?

I am the senate

you seen them or only heard about them?...It doesnt take a man to drop something on a planet

explain this

pictures of the backside of the moon are fake because it's a hologram

>why are we still using fossil fuel then?

Because fuel cells are still far more expensive than internal combustion engines, and do not produced anything like the energy/mass ratio - (an IC engine weighing the same as a fuel cell will produce significantly more power)

infrastructure for supply of hydrogen and oxygen in safety has also prevented the spread of fuel cells for other applications.

safety, like the explosive nature of the fuels... exactly what caused the Apollo 13 accident.

Buzz joined Armstrong outside after making adjustments on the Spacecraft back to Earth.

thanks janitor

no answer eh?

>724121133
>Van allen radiation belt....google it

the apollo launch trajectories lifted the rockets up and around the region where the van allen belt is stronger.

sort of like going around the sprinklers on your lawn, rather then getting soaked by walking through the spray.

27 volts to power a heater and ac to combat -240 F deg cold and +253 deg F in the sun....hahahha thats laughable..in a craft that was tinfoil...wake up dumbass

>what is vacuum
le wakey wakey

Retard.
The foil reflected most of the heat, and the cold is almost irrelevant when you're essentially inside a thermos.

Wake up dumbass

You guys ever notice that people trying to debunk the moon landing spend more time insulting others for being "ignorant" and "gullible" than actually presenting their facetious "evidence"?

Van Halen radiation belt. Googled

still havent heard this explained Einsteins

It would have been impossible to broadcast a moon landing. It's impossible to take video or photos in a place with no atmosphere.

I dont think we did and the earth is flat.

No, of course not. The Moon doesn't even have landing gear, nor thrusters, nothing. It would have crashed if it had tried to land on Earth...

>tinfoil craft
do people really think it was made out of tin foil?

How was you able to hear the astronauts talking to mission control when they were setting on top of a rocket running as they were landing? The noise would of been unbearable

The moon has gravity

dont cry

>pound rocket pointed straight down not create a huge crater in a powdery surface and the pictures of the lander show no dust on the gold foil covering the legs. In near zero gravity the dust cloud would of lingered for ever...FAKE

1. it was a throttle--controlled engine. it was not running at full 10,000 lbs at the moment of landing. In fact it was running at about 10% for landing, with the main burn in space running at about 40%. (there was a BIG margin for error in case of landing aborts, that would mean they needed a huge burst to lift up safely)

2. it is not "near zero gravity". Gravity is 1/6th that of earth. Drop a stone from your hand on earth, it takes about 1 second to fall. on the moon, it takes about 5-6. it doesnt simply float. Furthermore, for Apollo 11, there was a 2-hour wait between touchdown, and their first opening the hatch to walk on the moon.

3. It is in vaccum - any dust that is ejected out has a lot of velocity, which is not lost by atmosphere. therefore, dust flung out continues away from the landing point until it hits the ground again. it does not simply float around in a dust cloud round the landing point.

No. It just gets annoying when people still don't want to believe it's fake when actual evidence is present.

>would of
Your post was extremely retarded,but this still irked me the most about it

No

Film at the time would not have withstood the radiation in space without damaging it. Yet somehow we miraculously have footage from the surface of the moon

Almost all external surfaces, except for the top, platform, ladder, descent engine and heat shield, were covered in amber, dark (reddish) amber, black, silver, and yellow aluminized Kapton foil blankets for thermal insulation.

You might have a point. But also. You can't film in space. There aren't any partakes to carry light. So it would be impossible to get an image like they did.

youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

No. Think about this: How would the Astronauts find anything on the moon without speaking German? Fake News.

just wow.

The maker of the camera Hasselblat admits the images could not have been done

The dunning-kruger effect is strong with this one....

with his first hand experience of building cameras in space right?

RADIATION EVERYWHERE DEATH SAD

LOUD NOISES

it was their cameras that were used on the imaginary mission

How much does nasa pay you to keep the lies going?

what is sunlight, how is earth still here with all that deadly radiation fanbelt?

>Absurd claim
Here is evidence that proves you incorrect.
>Ignore and present another absurd claim
Again, here is why you're wrong.
>Repeat until other party throws their hands up in frustration, then claim victory.

It's so fucking easy

The government relies on you brainwashed cattle to keep the money rolling in...keep believing everything they tell you...graze away MOOOOO

thanks
sage.
i was lost in a void of ignorance for a moment there.
you really helped me out on this one

...

sunlight is cold.

SPACE IS A MESS

which government? UDSSR or USA?
(did you ever think about why these two names sound so similar?

ahh like the counter-intuitive blue blood we all have.
it polarizes upon contact with earths atmosphere in a similar way i assume.

maybe we did land on the moon and they brought back autism and vaccines?

>anyone with any knowledge of technology knows it was impossible then and now

Please elaborate, and then tell that to Elon Musk, who plans on sending two tourists around its orbit by next year.

ahh
refreshing to see our future fuhrer and savior. how would we ever find the truth without him pulling back the shroud and opening our eyes

blood is not blue, it just looks blue in cold sunlight

>Film at the time would not have withstood the radiation in space without damaging it. Yet somehow we miraculously have footage from the surface of the moon

And yet every US spy satellite in the 1960's and 70's, particularly the CORONA, GAMBIT and SAMOS series of rockets launched from 1959 to 1967 used a standard Kodak optical film system with high-resolution cameras to photograph targets in the soviet union, to resolutions of around 10cm, prior to jettisoning the film capsules in a reentery vehicle with parachute which was intercepted in mid-air to prevent risk of landing damage to the capsules.
CORONA satellites orbited for 19 days, Gambit for 8-10 days, and the SAMOS satellites operated for up to a month.

which rather demonstrates your entire "film would not have withstood the radiation" claim is bullshit.

>plans

how about because we hadnt been given electricity by the aliens yet. fuckin duh. why u so slow?

Yes, plans. SpaceX has had a particularly solid record concerning their plans.

schemes

If film could take this amount of radiation, then we would have (real) pictures of the Hiroshima bomb, wouldn't we?

>plots
strokes cat

Who the fuck would be taking pictures on the ground?

THE GLOBALIST AGENDA MUST BE STOPPED PEOPLE. DON'T LET THEM CONTROL YOUR MIND.

how could any falcon rocket generate enough thrust to overcome the force of the earths own rockets that propel us through space?
do you even physics?

Believe what you want thats all that matters
Common sense was never a human strong point.
If you think the technology existed 50 yrs ago to do this you have none what so ever

I notice you've gone very quiet since the facts about the lander engine thrust, and the reality of dust, and dust falling back to the surface have shown your claims that it was "fake" are nothing but ignorance.

what's your next "gotcha" claim of something that you imagine was impossible which needs debunking?

That wasn't even coherent.

Pizzagate is real

>is in fact actual gateway to hell in the basement of pizza shop
dont be a cuck who thinks it doesnt.
ive been there

>i dont understand it
>it must be a lie

It must be cozy in your small world.