What are some kinocumentaries on how the "moon landing" was fake?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What are some kinocumentaries on how the "moon landing" was fake?
What are some kinocumentaries on how the "moon landing" was fake?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Definitive.
good lord
just finished it. thanks for the link anon. i believe we didn't go to the moon, it's actually really obvious
Not a doco but Operation Avalanche
>Operation Acalanche
Seconded. Really good little flick that shows how it could have gone down. Great attention to detail.
seconded
If the moon landing was faked why didn't the soviets point it out to massively BTFO the us on the world stage
watch
at 30:50
it answers your question
No. Explain it to me in text, to show you are intelligent enough to actually understand the narratives fed to you.
watch the fricking video stupid Black person, it will answer literally all your Black person questions
>Russians would look like sore losers (losing the race to the moon) because nobody would believe them vs the Mutts propaganda machine
>If Russians called it out they would have ruined all the other cooperation they had going on with NASA which led to the ISS etc.
Not that anon, but no, I will not watch your stupid fricking video. Most incredible that people actually believe this shit. You're probably onboard with the contrails thing too, yes?
>I will not watch your stupid fricking video
lmao stupid israelite victim detected, stay dumb and take another booster fricktard
"Optics" makes literally no sense in that context, how the frick would they appear "sore losers" for exposing a complete hoax?, Why would the Soviets need "cooperation" from a country who they beat in every space milestone to the point that the US has to fake a moon landing to save face? Why the frick would the country who landed a probe on venus be so reliant on the country who has to have Kubrick make propaganda films for them?
How would they expose it? You can give a moron all the evidence in the world, but if they’re emotionally invested in believing something contrary it won’t mean frick all
You gullible fricking moron.
> In the next section, around minute 30:00, we are told the Russians wouldn't have blown the cover of the Apollo program due to detente, by which the US and the USSR were working together beginning with the Nixon administration. However, this is again misdirection, since the US and USSR were always working together. The entire Cold War was faked, including the Russian Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs, and all the rest. The US and USSR were pretend enemies in that period for the usual reason: to steal money from both treasuries. You should already know this, since Mazzucco admits that during the 70s and 80s the US and USSR were linking their space programs in Low Earth Orbit. There are many other examples of US and USSR cooperation in these decades, which should seem strange given that Reagan was at the same time calling the Soviets the Evil Empire and asking for a trillion for the Star Wars program to counter their alleged aggression. Remind yourself that the Russians and Americans were allies up to the end of WWII. And then remind yourself that there was no stated reason for their sudden dislike of eachother beginning in the late 40s. Other than that the CIA willed it to be so. The gay Nazis actors were all on the beaches in Brazil, so we needed a new enemy to justify “defense” budgets. You can't justify trillion-dollar defense budgets without enemies, can you?
> Remind yourself that the Russians and Americans were allies up to the end of WWII. And then remind yourself that there was no stated reason for their sudden dislike of eachother beginning in the late 40s.
I can’t believe I share a website with people this moronic
would look like sore losers (losing the race to the moon) because nobody would believe them vs the Mutts propaganda machine
>If Russians called it out they would have ruined all the other cooperation they had going on with NASA which led to the ISS etc.
What a load of fricking nonsense.
Russians didn't admit the landing was fake because they too were on board.
Cold War was a farce.
Last real "US enemy" was destroyed in 1945.
this is why they always tell you to
"Watch the video!"
Cause its moronic bullshit like this LMAO
>they would have ruined all the other cooperation they had going on with NASA which led to the ISS etc.
Wait, so you morons are fine with the iss, but landing on the moon is just a little bit too far for your small brains to comprehend.
Don't even try to argue with moonfakers. Either they truly believe their bullshit, and thus nothing will possibly change their stance, or, they are just trolling here for replies. Either way, it's pointless to engage with them.
the russians are the ones that secretly push the conspiracy that it was fake because they are eternally butthurt they couldn't do it
The Soviets landed a robot on the moon.
>yes we did go: we found aliens
>no we didn't go: space is fake, earth is flat, aliens are gay
choose
These fake conspiracy theories are the perfect smoke screen for the fricked up shit out there. Sure goy, Earth is flat, moonlanding was fake and vaccines cause autism. Keep consuming your goyslop and don't worry, you already figured out the truth!
>GOY, TRUST ZE SCIENCE, TAKE ZE JAB, LISTEN TO WHAT BLACK SCIENCE MAN TELLS YOU, BELIEVE IN NOTHINGNESS, BELIEVE YOU ARE WORTHLESS
If only you knew how moronic you sound from the side
I know everyone denying that moon landing was a hoax is probably some room temperature IQ moron high on his own farts, but just for fun, how about you big brain chads answer a couple of questions for me since you are so convinced of that lie:
>How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt while traveling on an oversized aluminum can?
>What happened to the telemetry data from the trip?
>Why has nobody else made a manned trip to the moon since?
>What happened to the magical technology that allowed this feat of engineering, that is now suddenly impossible even with super computers?
I have a couple more but let's start with these, shall we?
There was nothing on the moon, it was a prestige project, it was America vs Russia. Capitalism vs Communism. Shit was expensive so they abandoned it. Just a rock bro
Not what I asked, dipshit. Try again.
>Why has nobody else made a manned trip to the moon since?
It is a worthless hostile desolate place. Any hypothetical commercial exploitation is nowhere near economical to pay for itself.
Right. And the other questions? Or is the only question you can answer the one where you can speculate and pull the answer out of your ass?
Name one other time that humans did something out of exploration and decided to stop completely for no reason. The only place we don't go is the deep sea. Can you guess why? Because we can't get down there because of the massive water pressure.
What's stopping us from going to moon, big boy? You have no problem with the governments spending billions on bullshit, but this is where they draw the line?
Yes. I'm not here to butt my head against concrete. You can persists in your rather harmless delusions. Believing the moon landings is fake only really implies that the govt is lying to you, which you already believe.
So, you can't answer the questions? You are not going to convince anyone by whining, just so you know, so at least fricking try to think about the questions I posed.
No one is going to convince you by answering your questions, either. You’re wasting your time.
>>What happened to the magical technology that allowed this feat of engineering, that is now suddenly impossible even with super computers?
It has been very much possible, nobody wants to fork over the cash though. Same answer for your previous question.
It was a "frick you" intended for the Soviet Union, a hollow victory in a Cold War full of bullshit from both sides.
I'm absolutely certain that it's completely possible to colonize the moon at least in a small scale, it's just to expensive and nobody really gives a shit apart from manchildren like Musk and Bezos who are so bored with their lives they need some extraordinary crap to keep them going.
>It has been very much possible, nobody wants to fork over the cash though. Same answer for your previous question.
So, let me get this straight, you actually believe it's an economic reason? The people who run this planet have measured and divided up every fricking square inch of land and assigned ownership to all of it, but the big ball on the night sky, none of these greedy psychopaths want to own it or turn it into their private land for some reason? If you actually believe that, you are the dumbest motherfricker in this entire galaxy.
As long as the natural resources on earth are available and cheaper to get, there is no real reason to colonize the moon.
Just think about how you're going to transport hundreds or thousands of tons of rare metals.
How are you going to plan the re-entry into the atmosphere?
That's a quote from a single dude referring to the EXACT same technology used back then. Why the frick would you build an exact copy of the Apollo 11? You just build something new.
If you honestly believe NASA doesn't have the technological means to build something (if they get the funds for it) to land men on the moon again, you're a fricking brainlet.
>How are you going to plan the re-entry into the atmosphere?
Whoa, there cowboy. How about you explain to the rest of us how you are going to get there first before talking about re-entry? Or did you forget that I'm arguing for the entire moon mission being a hoax?
>That's a quote from a single dude referring to the EXACT same technology used back then.
You are so full of shit, it's actually sad. You have nothing to back that bullshit up, you just decided to interpret it that way to because it suits you.
But I get it. You are a true believer and you don't give a shit about the facts or how none of it matches up if you spend more than two second thinking about it.
>Hows noody been to the moon yet theres things we placed on there like the mirror to fire the laser array at
We are talking about MOON LANDING, moron, not unmanned missions.
You thick c**t, I said they left things behind on the moon landing. Like the mirror.
You are just a spack basically, jobless brain damaged twat who spends all day looking at conspiracy theories online.
>How about you explain to the rest of us how you are going to get there first before talking about re-entry?
I know, I know, the ISS which is visible with the naked eye is just a lightbulb installed by the CIA. And the stuff you see with telescopes is just VFX.
>You have nothing to back that bullshit up
Where are your facts to back you bullshit up that you've read in some facebook group once? Fricking psychotic moron, take your meds.
>ISS
The ISS is on the moon? Are you moronic?
Not anon but you are the fricking moron. The question is viable to your dumb theories.
You are literally dodging answering as you cant.
Hes pointing out that you can launch into space as you have said this isnt possible and nor is re entry.
For frick's sake, I was just busting the guy's balls. I didn't claim leaving the planet's atmosphere wasn't possible, I said getting organic matter through the radiation belt WITH NO SHIELDING is a whole other matter.
And the fact that NOBODY ELSE HAS FRICKING DONE IT SINCE should make everyone suspicious, but apparently americans prefer their leader's lies to actually thinking about shit.
>I said getting organic matter through the radiation belt WITH NO SHIELDING
It WAS shielded. Where the frick do you read it wasn't? Do you think the hull of Apollo 11 was made of cardboard?
Show me the fricking source, then! How was it shielded!?
Show me yours first. Prove the Van Allen belts are fatally hazardous to pass through unshielded let alone shielded. What's your source on your base claim?
Im not American fatty
Well, you sure argue like one.
>How about you explain to the rest of us how you are going to get there first
I was referring to that bullshit. Concerning your Van Allen radiation belt stuff, where are your calculations that the dose of radiation is too high for the time it takes to travel through it to ensure survivability? I'll wait. As long as you don't come up with one I believe the data NASA gathered, you know, by people who actually studied in their fields and know something apart from facebook.
>the data NASA gathered
source?
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf
Talked out of my ass about the data, maybe it exists but I don't know, What I do know is that while the shielding was shit compared to the stuff they equip satellites with today, the amount of radiation that got through the outer shield consisting of steel is survivable. You can look for data about the radiation accumulated with no shielding while travelling through the belt with certain speeds.
Oh, and for the record, NASA has admitted they don't have the technology anymore. So there goes that theory.
>Van Allen radiation belt
>he bought that bullshit
I don't even need to read further holy shit
>hohoho I am the authority therefore I do not need to address anything because I am so correct I don't even need to debate
Wish we could shove people like you in wood chippers.
I don't think your have the brain power to operate one.
Thanks for proving my point. None of you answered any of the questions, and now you are acting like religious zealots. Wish you morons had even an ounce of self-awareness.
Plenty have answered your questions, you just don't want to accept them.
None have answered any of the questions that matter. But you seem like a smart individual, so I'm sure you have the answers:
>How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt while traveling on an oversized aluminum can?
>What happened to the telemetry data from the trip?
Answer those two and I'll be happy.
I bet you do moron. Good thing for me you wouldn't be able to figure out how to turn the thing on even if you could overpower me with your mongoloid strength. Or is your precious "van allen radiation" going to give you super brain powers to figure it out lol
Fat c**t wouldnt fit in any woodchipper out there.
>How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt while traveling on an oversized aluminum can?
they didn't because of radiation
>What happened to the telemetry data from the trip?
stolen, lost... you pick.
>Why has nobody else made a manned trip to the moon since?
cost to much,radiation but more importantly the "measuring contest" was already won
>What happened to the magical technology that allowed this feat of engineering, that is now suddenly impossible even with super computers?
still there, now obsolete. super computers CAN make it, but why go to space when you can have a comfy smartphone.
>>How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt while traveling on an oversized aluminum can?
it's not an instant death zone, you can travel through it quickly and we can see where the least intense areas are so it's harmless
>What happened to the telemetry data from the trip?
which trip? the usa went to moon five times. the original missing tapes are only from apollo 11 and they were already copied before they went missing anyway so it still exists
>Why has nobody else made a manned trip to the moon since?
there's no financial incentive to due so and technology isn't advanced enough to do what makes sense which is use the moon to process mined asteroids, assemble ships on the moon then use the moon as the primary launch site for spaceships
>What happened to the magical technology that allowed this feat of engineering, that is now suddenly impossible even with super computers?
the technology created was a prototype made specifically for that period in time for that very specific use. it was never meant to be replicated. what happened to that technology? it created the digital age you fricking moron. it made analog computers completely obsolete so the technology wasn't lost it was replaced
>it's not an instant death zone
You actually think they navigated the belt with a fricking rocket? Seriously?
Well, whatever. The telemetry question was more about the confusion surrounding the missions, but from what I remember, they did not copy those missing reports.
Right, anyway. One more question.
>Why were all the supposed moon rocks that were brought back petrified wood?
Oh, and the economic answer is just bullshit and you know it as much as I do. It's not a fricking question of money, for frick's sake.
So are Americans still the only ones to have landed on the moon since 1969. If you're going to doubt something, that at least sounds doubtable: Great powers are in a race to go to the moon. America makes it first. They tell their 'enemies': "Don't worry about if bro, just a dead rock.".
And nobody else has ventured to go to the moon ever since. Because the Great Powers are all just buddies who trust each other.
>How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt while traveling on an oversized aluminum can?
Van Allen belts are not the insanely radioactive death zones moon landing deniers say they are. It would certainly be hazardous to have a manned space station within the belts but the apollo lander passing through them was probably one of the least dangerous things they did
>What happened to the telemetry data from the trip?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
>Why has nobody else made a manned trip to the moon since?
Extraordinarily expensive and ultimately pointless after the USA landed first, might change if Helium 3 mining ever becomes viable
>What happened to the magical technology that allowed this feat of engineering, that is now suddenly impossible even with super computers?
The technology that got us to the moon is not impossible to recreate, its that the massive supply and manufacturing chains and support infrastructure necessary to build something like the Saturn V is no longer around
>Extraordinarily expensive and ultimately pointless after the USA landed first, might change if Helium 3 mining ever becomes viable
I think we should shift the conversation to this now. I'm sorry if somebody thinks it's a cop-out, but this is now so prevalent it is becoming the crux of the issue.
You all keep saying it's a money isssue. HOW. THE. FRICK. Productivity of all industrial sectors has multiplied since then, and you are not at war now, USA. So how the frick do you keep claiming you don't have the resources to do something you already did, when you where MUCH poorer and less technologically advanced? How the frick does that make sense to all of you?
The Apollo program cost the equivalent of 257 billion dollars in the 1960's, which would today amount to 1/4 of the entire US military budget
>Why would they take the US's word for it
It was pretty easy to prove with the laser reflectors Apollo left after their mission
>which would today amount to 1/4 of the entire US military budget
Motherfricker, you don't even know the actual budget of US military. Nobody does, for several reasons. The black budget bullshit, and the fact that they keep "misplacing" their books.
Are you seriously going to tell me that the same homosexuals that locked the entire fricking planet down for two years by making people scared of the flu don't have the resources to build a base on moon to have a place to escape to from the angry peasants? Get the frick out of here.
So, your argument also boils down to "human greed has a limit." Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying it. Ever.
>So, your argument also boils down to "human greed has a limit." Yeah, sorry, I'm not buying it. Ever.
If you have unlimited amounts of money and the cost of mining 1 ton of steel on earth is $10.000 and on the moon it's $100.000, what would you choose? How fricking moronic can you be?
The greed is essentially the reason why it is realistic that at some point in the future moon will be colonized for the reason of stripping its resources. If you do that now, it's just prestige bullshit and sunken cost.
It's the basic principle of economic thinking.
We are not talking about terraforming or mining the moon, you moron. We are talking about a research base, we would enable a whole new field of research in low gravity and no atmosphere. How fricking dense are you, to not understand the implications of that?
Or frick it, even just another visit. Call it a victory lap or some gay shit like that.
Are you not aware of the NASA Artemis program?
>The Artemis program intends to reestablish a human presence on the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. The major components of the program are the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion spacecraft, Lunar Gateway space station and the commercial Human Landing Systems. The program's long-term goal is to establish a permanent base camp on the Moon and facilitate human missions to Mars.
Okay. So have they sent another manned mission to the moon?
>However, some observers note that the program's cost and timeline are likely to be overrun and delayed due to, according to internal and external review, NASA's inadequate management of contractors.
Oh. Of course.
>So have they sent another manned mission to the moon?
Why are you asking that when the answer is known to you?
Because the whole fricking point of this entire argument we are having is over whether or not any human has actually visited the moon.
What the frick is the point of talking about some project that might as well be just a name in some notebook?
I dunno, I thought you were arguing why no one is going back to the moon. When they are. Even if it happens you lot would not believe it anyway, you'll just say its CGI or something.
>I dunno, I thought you were arguing why no one is going back to the moon. When they are
Really? And how many manned missions have there been to moon, then?
I dont get what you're saying. I'm saying, there are plans to go back, its happening. What are you saying? That we never went in the first place?
Yes. That's what I've been saying all day. At some point it did become too expensive (or difficult) for US reach the moon with a manned craft, so in order to save face they faked the whole thing. The moon rocks that were brought back turned out to be petrified wood and the technology and data from those trips either disappeared or was sealed off.
If you seriously think the government and NASA wouldn't lie about that, I don't know what to tell ya.
>If you seriously think the government and NASA wouldn't lie about that, I don't know what to tell ya.
That's the point where I can see where you're coming from, if my government were as shady as yours I might also be really suspicous about everything they say. But at some point it just becomes ridiculous, do you really think they faked ALL of the photos regarding the moon landing here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
Hold on, so you don't have a problem with the idea of them faking this shit, but the MAGNITUDE of their lie? I'm not even all that interested in this topic (despite posting actively in this thread), but even the little bit that I know is all pretty shady.
And since they've never replicated this feat nor have any answers other than "we are broke lol" for why, while this entire thing is the only thing that the countries don't compete over, is mighty suspicious. That's all I'm saying. And for the record, I'm fine with being wrong about this. But seeing as every answer just raises more questions about the whole thing makes me even more suspicious.
Thats why I mentioned Artemis. Because you're saying "its suspicious we've never been back"
But there are active steps being taken currently to go back. What then? What when there IS a base there? "Oh its fake its CGI its more lies"
>Thats why I mentioned Artemis. Because you're saying "its suspicious we've never been back"
Oh, I see where the miscommunication comes. Okay, so satellites and things like the ISS? Sure. They are still in Earth's gravity. They can do that, sure.
Everything else, including the Mars missions and any talk about going back to moon? I think it's bullshit. NASA is one of those too big to fail endeavors, so I'm sure that at least some of their actual operations are legit (such as the aforementioned Earth satellites), but everything else is just a means for them to secure funding.
So basically, if there was an actual Artemis project with achievements, like actually sending a person to moon and documenting it heavily? Yeah, you'd have a leg to stand on. But as of right now, you understand, that the project has just as good of a chance of being nothing but lies as it has of ever launching. That's my point.
Again, I'm not saying I'm right 100%, I'm just saying it's all pretty fricking suspicious because of the whole "we never went back to the moon" thing. Planning a new trip doesn't change that.
No, I can understand where you're coming from while I still believe that the moon-landing isn't fake.
That's fine. Hard to say conclusively either way because it's one of those topics where you can't even get all the facts. I'm sure one day we (or people who come after us) will find out whether it was the most successful psy-op of human history or really happened. Either way, I guess it belongs in the history books.
Even if you had all the facts you need serious knowledge about physics and mathematics to even understand them. Pure data in itself is also not really enough in some cases because you need to understand how the data is generated, what the conditions are and if the data might be faulty.
You're insane. They left a mirror up there so NASA could bounce lasers off it and measure the exact distance to the moon, and you can *see* the fricking thing if you're one of these moon-watchers with the backyard telescope and the polarized filters and the 8" lens.
Why would questioning this one thing make me "insane?" I'll never understand you people who trust the authority like it's your daddy. How do you know it wasn't an unmanned craft that carried it there?
So that's the actual question. What would it take to convince someone? Can you tell me what you need to prove it is fake? To prove it's real I want to see something that is beyond our capacity to fake. Like if the moon landings took picture of the night sky. The star map would reveal truth because star locations would vary based on the moon location and thousands of people could do math and corroborate.
>whole new field of research in low gravity and no atmosphere
Who actually cares about that shit apart from scientists in those fields? Technologies people care about today are mostly AI related and have to do with every day lifes.
Why care about some space shit that's far in the future anyway if you can have technology that can directly impact your life here and now?
>Why care about some space shit that's far in the future anyway if you can have technology that can directly impact your life here and now?
Do you even understand that if every person had that exact same mindset, we would still be living in caves and nobody would even bother trying to master fire? How can you make that fricking argument with (what I assume to be) straight face? Why the frick didn't the original americans stay in Britain and pay the fricking tea-tax? Would've been easier than sailing to a new continent.
We bothered making fire because it increased our chances of survival. Exploration is a human feat that still exists but all the talk about space is pretty worthless when we aren't even remotely able to take care of the one fricking planet we have. And while the nu-hippie gays annoy me to no end they do have a point.
People today are, for better or worse, way more foccused on the life on planet earth.
And your point with experiments in low gravity and no atmosphere is pretty hollow because that's even possible on earth. Not in the same way as in space but it's not like that you can only do that shit on the moon.
>People today
"People" are not the ones making the decisions. Thought everyone had learned that by now. And the creatures on top of this fricked up pyramid sure as shit don't care about pollution, waste, or wasting resources, since they are not the ones who have to actually labor over those things.
>we aren't even remotely able to take care of the one fricking planet we have
I never worry about that. The only reason to take care of the planet would be in our self interest. If we don't take care of the planet, it will take care of us. It's a good system. "Save the Whale"! Why? The planet is a coming and going of species. Don't get me wrong, I've chosen to be against nihilism. But environmentalism is either just a veil or a lack of understanding. We're trying to survive as a species. Everyone wants to live forever. Basically, everything on this planet is out to kill us. And now we're in pole position. What are we going to do with it? What's our endgoal here, if there is one.
If you'd ask "normal" people on the streets they would tell you stuff like
>self driving cars are great, I'm too lazy to drive myself
>it's great that the AI can write my essays, I'm too lazy to do it myself
>automated production is great, nobody wants to do the mind-numbing work anyway and the products are cheaper because of it
>it's great that my search engine has an AI because I'm too dumb to search properly
Of course there are many negative implications with AI as well but that's not the point.
Interest in colonizing different planets was so popular back then because it was a novelty and the moon landing showed that it was a possibility for the first time in human history.
And my argument still stands, apart from the dreams of some people the most valid reason for colonizing the moon are its resources and it's economically moronic to do so with all the resources still existing on earth at this point in time. And that's the reason why nobody has landed on the moon since.
How would any of that make them money, you dumbass? First you were talking about greed now you’re saying they should spend billions on a “victory lap”.
No one is saying anything about humans not having greed, you aspie. In fact, plenty have said that greed is the reason they’re not bothering to go to the moon. They’re mining the hell out of earth first because it’s cheaper and yields more revenue. Once that stops being the case then they’ll look to the sky for more.
>It was pretty easy to prove with the laser reflectors Apollo left after their mission
Thanks for that. I'll read up on it. Still "Eyes on the Ground" and all that.
Nobody really cares about that shit anymore. You spend more money for the military because you want cheap oil, not some pipedream about getting resources from the moon.
As I said before, as long as the needed resources are available on earth and it's cheaper to get them there, there is no real reason to colonize the moon.
Depending on the development of population increase and worse environmental circumstances it might become real in the future but the earth isn't that fricked at this point.
>Extraordinarily expensive and ultimately pointless after the USA landed first
Most likely. But seeing the ideological war, I don't see how other forces like Russia or China haven't made their own attempt. Why would they take the US's word for it.
Sub-human morons need to learn that they should stick to their strongest talking point. Spewing a bunch of weak points to show ''how much evidence'' you have is a terrible tactic.
All someone has to do is debunk one.
>muh Van Allen
This by itself completely invalidates everything you say and makes you look like a moron. Maybe the moon landing was fake, but you just exposed yourself as an idiot and whatever good points you have will never be heard. Your entire premise starts will moronic shit.
How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt? In a rocket. This question makes no sense whatsoever. All astronauts spend time in the Van Allen radiation belt.
Braindead moron just discovered that if you go into space you'll be exposed to radiation. Maybe braindead moron should look up that there's an official cap on how much time you're allowed to have being exposed to the Van Allen radiation belt, which is 500 days.
The trip to the moon was 4 days. Do the math, moron.
Ah, yes, the old "you said this so now I don't have to even address any of your other points"-gambit. You sure are smarter than the rest of us, buddy. Now, frick off.
If your case hinges on you not understanding radiation and this is the strongest point you put forward while calling everyone low IQ, then you're not worth listening to.
Do some research next time instead of reading marvel goyslop comics.
And the moon rocks that turned out to be petrified wood? Have something witty to say about that, too?
Stay on subject. Prove the van allen belts are fatally harmful within the window those astronauts are purported to have been exposed to them. Until you do that or concede the point nobody's going to engage as you wander about shitting out statements you'll likely also refuse to corroborate when pressed.
I don't know what a single museum in Netherlands getting scammed has to do with you thinking Van Allen belt is some impenetrable Dragon Ball Z force wall
Try to stay on topic, troony
>Sub-human morons need to learn that they should stick to their strongest talking point. Spewing a bunch of weak points to show ''how much evidence'' you have is a terrible tactic.
Glad other people recognise this, its so fricking annoying how often I see people shooting themselves in the foot with this in arguments.
>how did they get through the Paul Allen radiation belt
With a raincoat and a fireaxe, moron
>they steered the rocket, like a car, through the radiation path, bro
Fricking hell is it tin hat obese autistic c**t Friday again.
Hows noody been to the moon yet theres things we placed on there like the mirror to fire the laser array at
One time in science class back in public school I was shown a documentary about how the moon landing was faked. I brought it up with my dad when I got home and he got fricking pissed. Apparently his father worked on that endeavor and the mere idea it could've been made up sent him into a fury.
>we spend countless of money having the ISS spacestation floating in space for no purpose
>but we can't spend money building a base on the moon that would allow us to do scientific experiments and research that would only be possible there
Someone explain this to me?
This was also a good point. So, moon landing was a "prestige project", but first base on the moon isn't? What?
You could make experiments there that you can't do on Earth, giving the country that does it a leg-up in scientific research, but nobody is interested? Are you guys serious?
I can't recall the name, but the guy literally went around with footage showing how the cameras were being adjusted from OUTSIDE the lunar module in flight to the moon. Then went around trying to get all the famous apollo guys to swaer on the Bible (on penalty of treason and eternal damnation) that they actually went to the moon. None of them would do it.
The superior conspiracy theory is that we did go to the moon AND the footage is faked, because they found aliens there monitoring us and they told us to go away. And then remember when they crashed something into the moon (during Obama years) to look for water in the plume? That was us nuking the moon aliens, and now we can go back.
>insist multiple times over an hour that the van allen belts are a deathzone that no human could ever traverse and survive
>one anon bothers to ask for corroboration on the initial claim
>suddenly you only want to talk about financial feasibility
wewladdy
We can talk about Van Allen radiation belt if you'd like, but it became obvious to me throughout the conversation that none of us have expertise to conclusively state anything about it. So what's the point of continuing along that path? I find the current path much more fruitful.
The moon is moving away from us at 4 cm or 1,6 inches a year. Of course you have to take into account the fact that it's moving away at an exponentional rate, but I'm not a mathead, so let's do a guesstimation. The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
So: 1,6x 45000000000 = 72000000000 inches
an inch is 2,54 cm
so 2,54 x 72000000000 = 182880000000 cm
So, more or less the moon would have been 182880000 km closer to earth. That's nothing to sneeze at.
Frick I suck at math. Just googled distance moon to earth and it's 385 km.
Reason why I'm curious about is because humans are large bodies of water. Or all animals. I want to know how much closer the moon was so many years ago and if it's pull had more of an influence.
>humans
Humans are very new and moon was basically in the same space it's in now. Humans wouldn't see any difference.
You'd have to look at the first land walking animals which is 423 million years ago. When the first animals started walking on earth the moon would be 16920km closer to earth assuming the moon moves 4cm a year and things like meteors don't change the speed and there's no acceleration.
Honestly the difference wouldn't be that great. The tides would have been noticeable higher. The pull moon's gravity has on earth is very small and only seen on a big scale on the ocean.
>humans are large bodies of water
Sounds like you're confused and think the moon only pulls water, so if humans are 60% water then the moon pulls that water or something.
I think there's a statistic more murders happen under a fool moon. Or it might be folklore. I always related that to us being largely made up of water and the moon having a pull, causing a change in behavior.
>Lunatic
It's in the word. So yeah, you try to make sense of the world through shit like that. I guess I could easily verify or debunk it with a google search.
*full
You need to huff less gasoline. The moon being ''full'' just means there isn't a shadow on the moon that you can see. It doesn't mean the moon is closer or further away from earth.
I don't understand the entire narrative around the ''full moon.'' It makes no sense to me, not the superstition shit where people think that the moon makes them crazy, I don't understand what the frick people mean they talk about the full moon. I can look out my window right now, it's daytime, I can see the moon and it's ''full.'' Does that not count as a full moon? Does this full moon not turn people crazy and doesn't turn people into werewolves because it's wrong time of day?
I legit do not understand what moon people are looking at. Every night the moon is full, I don't know from what geographic location you need to look at the moon at night for it to be partially obstructed. Maybe people are talking only about a very specific time of the day. I don't get it.
You do know about ebb and flow? The moon has a pull. Go to the sea and you can see it in action. So it's not that farfetched it would have an influence on us.
Tides rise and fall daily, so lunacy would be a daily event at certain hours
Lunacy is a 24/7 occurrence. You're talking to a lunatic right now, someone who thinks the moon only pulls water so the moon must also pull water from your brains (only when the moon is fully lit though) and this does something
I wonder if the moon was close enough it would counter gravity and we could fly
No, the moon is a mega structure built by ancient aliens/humans. Didn't you know?
>You're talking to a lunatic right now
Shut up. It's a perfectly valid question.
You said "Stop huffing gasoline". Why am I even discussing this. I'm no expert. The only question I was posing was that you see the sea behaving differently and since Humans are 60% (just looked it up) water, couldn't it be that that it has an influence over us.
>so lunacy would be a daily event at certain hours
Maybe, it's not because you can't see it, it can't have an influence. But that's not what I ment.
Ebb and flow during the day are caused by the moon, or not?
If you aren't a 12 year old kid this is really embarrassing and your drug addict parents failed you.
>The moon has a pull
but you can't feel it
Because the Earth has stronger pull
...but the ocean still gets pulled...
>individual molecules of liquid are more affected than solid dense packed tissue
WOW
fedora tipping homosexual
maybe "im a moron" by polcuck420
I'm sure this is a botted thread made to shit up the board but here is one conclusive proof the Moon landing was faked - astronaut suits were so bulky and rigid that there is no way they could be taken off and put on inside the spaceship.
Not a bot thread. I was bored for a few hours so most of the posts are me arguing about the topic for the sole purpose of trying to get people to question the nature of their reality at least a little bit. I'd say it was a failure but I had fun.
Anyway, sorry for keeping the off-topic thread alive. That was my bad.
I'd say the bigger obstacle to learning the truth about anything these days is the massive, all-encompassing propaganda system also known as mainstream media (that includes social media) that gave up on reporting the news a long time ago and is probably more of a CIA project than an actual industry these days. For reference, the US passed laws a while back making propagandizing their own citizens legal.
>mainstream media
Imo if you believe everything they say it's moronic but also if you don't believe anything they say.
Media was always influenced by politics and agendas since the first books came out. What I really find funny about some conspiracy theorists is on the one hand the absolute disbelief in everything mass media says but on the other hand believing some random people who are even less reputable.
Doesn't mean that all they're saying is bullshit but if you're saying mainstream media is all lies, then other media can't be any better.
Each serves their own goals and purposes, for the most part the generation of income.
>Media was always influenced by politics and agendas since the first books came out
That's not what I'm talking about. Yes, there used to be a political spin to news, obviously. Even simply by the fact that every news story is written from only one perspective leads to this. That's not what I'm talking about.
Current news isn't news at all. It's programming. Its purpose isn't to inform you of anything, it's to get you to act a certain, predictable way. Most often through fear. There's a whole world of difference between writing a story from a specific perspective and with a specific agenda, to quite literally attempting to mind control the masses through fear. You better learn this quickly, because shit is only going to get worse from here. And that isn't even getting to the widespread censorship that's gotten so subtle, that people like you don't even have a fricking clue about what's being hidden from you at this point.
That's definitely true about the 24/7 "news" crap in the US like CNN, Fox, MSNBC and all the other outlets. While CNN was better once and isn't complete garbage, US news were always pretty laughable to me.
The one place where I get my news from is ARD (German news funded partly by the state), while it's not perfect and was better once they really put emphasis on being neutral.
They're not really dependent on high viewer counts because they get funding from taxes anyway, which pisses many people off but at least they aren't hellbent on just looking at what most people would like to see to push their viewer numbers. (at least in the news section)
>They're not really dependent on high viewer counts because they get funding from taxes anyway
My country has the exact same thing. Do you want to know what they report on? Crimes white people commit while censoring the identities of immigrants that are flooding into this country. And when they are not doing that, they are pushing the whole globohomosexual LBGTQ+BBQ agenda with no breaks to adults, children even toddlers.
So no, being tax funded doesn't mean you are any different from CNN or Fox, and if I was a betting man I'd say that your German equivalent is exactly the same as the state funded news here.
you dont even realize how poisoned the american news media is and just assume it's the same shitshow evereyhere? lmao
I'm not american, and have no idea why you think I am. Is it because of my awesome language skills? Not british or australian either, by the way.
But, just for the record, I do speak a few languages so I'd venture a guess that I have a little bit better grasp on the global mainstream media than you do. At least, based on the opinions you've displayed here.
I'm mostly reading global and economic news but if there's an article about a killing or something similar and it was an immigrant you can clearly read that. They also call out the police/the state because most offenders were known by the police beforehand and in some cases even under surveillance that was absolute dogshit.
That nothing really changes isn't fault of the media reporting things incorrectly, it's more that most people don't care enough about it.
The LGBT stuff just gets really blown out of proportion, they have existed for a long time, most not openly but because it's a trend especially with soulless corporations who use it as a way of making more money (same with the ecology stuff).
When I search for "LGBT" on the news site, I get 67 results. When I search for "Bundeswehr" (Army of Germany), I get 6079 results. And that's in a country where many people are really not fond of military stuff.
I also keep up mostly with economic news, and while I'll admit that it's probably the field of journalism that still most resembles actual journalism, it's pretty clear that even they are not telling the truth anymore. Otherwise pretty much every outlet around the world would be ringing alarm bells about the coming recession that will most likely tank the global economy and lead to actual warfare, not this pussy proxy-war shit that US, Russia and China are constantly locked in.
On all the other counts I disagree with you completely. The LGBT is a big fricking deal, as it's the hammer we are being beat into submission at the moment, and I don't give two shits about its history. And the censorship when it comes to migrant crimes is happening everywhere in the west. I already alluded to it in an earlier posts where I said that the censorship has gotten so subtle your average person has no clue what's being hidden from them, nor any way of actually finding information independently because of social media sites being censored through "fact checkers" and other Orwellian nightmare mechanisms. They are not even being coy about it, in my country they blatantly admit to censoring news about those crimes to "avoid causing racisms."
I don't know but the economic news I'm reading have been pretty shitty at least for the last 3 years. If they tell the people "all is lost, the economy is collapsing" what do you think will happen to the stock market?
That automated meme bullshit is and has been a bubble since its inception anyway and only serves to make 0.1% of people exceedingly rich without much effort.
I don't know what you mean about submission, laws regarding minorities in Germany were always there and not much has changed since then. Sure, there are real problems that have to be resolved, but the world isn't ending because some people feel like they're wanting to "switch" gender.
People are talking about LGBT people molesting children and grooming them and meanwhile in Germany we have one scandal after the other were decade long sexual abuse by members of the church are getting public.
And guess what really changed after that? People quit the church but most of the perpetrators haven't even lost their jobs.
The world has always been a horrible, shitty place and no feel good bullshit in the media has ever changed that.
I for one don't give a flying frick what people are doing with their sexuality as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Why should I care if I have the option to change my gender in my passport if I have no interest in doing so?
While I partly agree with you on the subtle censorship, the regulation of social media was long overdue. Back in the day you had some crazy guy in a village who had some serious fricked up ideas that hurt other people.
With social media this person can reach at least a few hundred people who feel exactly the same and can cause serious damage.
I'm really not keen on censoring stuff in general but if you don't control this stuff at all you'll have mass psychosis.
The thing that most people really don't get in my opinion is that the average guy isn't really affected by any of it.
>If they tell the people "all is lost, the economy is collapsing" what do you think will happen to the stock market?
What should've happened decades ago: hopefully the criminalization of turning the global economy into a casino. You are free to disagree with me but I'm fricking tired of this system. It has never been a free market, and contrary to what you are being told, it doesn't have rules other than might makes right. If endless, back to back recessions don't clue you in on that, nothing will.
>I for one don't give a flying frick what people are doing with their sexuality as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
Why do you think manipulating children into sterilizing themselves, having an identity crisis and cutting them up with non-medical surgery isn't hurting them? I can't read the rest of your post until you address this.
Yeah the stock market bullshit was always crap. But try telling people that and you're a communist, I don't think it's going to chance any time soon.
Nothing really happened even after 1929 or the financial crisis in 2007.
If you really think that some media shit is manipulating children you don't give any credit to the intelligence of children or especially their parents. While it's more present and not a completely obscure topic nobody talks about I don't think children who are perfectly ok with their gender think about that stuff just because they saw something somewhere.
If you want to to hormone therapy in Germany it's only legal after 14 years and then the approval of the parents is needed and the family court as well.
It's also the job of parents to educate their children about it and differentiate between a real underlying issue and some puberty bullshit.
>If you really think that some media shit is manipulating children you don't give any credit to the intelligence of children or especially their parents
Uh, yeah, obviously not. Here's a shitty quote I hate but it illustrates my point nicely: think about how stupid the average person is. Now understand that half of them are even dumber than that. But more to the point, do you have any idea how gullible your average person is, regardless of their intelligence? Most buttholes parent by giving their kid an iPad and leaving them alone for hours. So you are goddamn right I don't trust children or their moronic parents to have the mental capacity to resist very clear propaganda. Here's a little fact that will probably make your brain shutdown as a defense mechanism: all the hormone treatment drugs a produces in Israel. All of them. It's a fricking psyop designed to hurt children and it has nothing to do with justice or equality.
>If you want to to hormone therapy in Germany it's only legal after 14 years and then the approval of the parents is needed and the family court as well.
For now. Until the frog gets comfortable, and then they turn the heat on again.
I don't care if you admit reality or not, but it isn't some organic social movement. It's an operation to reduce birthrates in west, and it's working.
And now, on to the rest of your post.
>The world has always been a horrible, shitty place and no feel good bullshit in the media has ever changed that.
This is a bit of a cop-out. World is cruel, for sure, but there's a difference between the harsh reality of nature and coordinated attacks on western man, women and children.
As for the church stuff, the church is pushing LGBT shit everywhere, they are not a separate issue.
>I'm really not keen on censoring stuff in general but if you don't control this stuff at all you'll have mass psychosis.
Either there is free speech, or there isn't. There is no in-between and that kind of fence-sitting is disgusting imo.
People are pretty dumb in general but don't forget that we're no geniuses either. The one thing every human has in common is looking after their own interests. As I've said before, I'm not affected at all by the LGBT stuff. If some mentally ill parents push their children to transition their gender resulting in their lives being completely fricked, that's really sad but it's not really my problem too be honest.
>It's an operation to reduce birthrates in west, and it's working.
The birthrates have been declining long before that. Women are working way more than before and a child is an inconvenience for some. The main problem is that the old "men works and women cares for the children" has pretty much vanished and there hasn't been a viable alternative that supports people wanting to get children.
That's something that takes time and while it can go shittily, you can't predict the future and be absolutely certain that people change in the future and birth rates rise again.
Another thing about declining birth rates is also education, especially regarding contraception. I'm not surprised that immigrants from poor countries have way higher birth rates, some of them have never seen a condom in their lives.
It's also something in poorer countries that it's absolutely necessary to have many children that can support you when you're old because you don't get anything from the state at all.
It's nice if you have children here that support you but it's not necessary to survive.
>church is pushing LGBT
is pretty generalizing. There are enough churches in my country that either don't talk about it at all or are very much against it. The whole pope stuff is pretty outdated at this point, you have high-ranking members of the catholic church that don't really care that much about that anymore.
>Either there is free speech, or there isn't.
Free speech regarding laws doesn't exist in any country in the world afaik.
>People are pretty dumb in general but don't forget that we're no geniuses either.
Well, technically I am. I don't mean that as a brag, but the story goes, when I was four I refused to speak, so my parents thought there might be something wrong with me. So, they took me to a doctor who didn't find anything and ordered an IQ test. They never told me the actual number but I was placed in some stupid gifted program because my IQ qualifies me for that silly genius label. I'm just saying.
>If some mentally ill parents push their children to transition their gender resulting in their lives being completely fricked, that's really sad but it's not really my problem too be honest.
One day it will be. These things have larger, societal implications, and you will most like feel them in your lifetime.
>The birthrates have been declining long before that.
Correct. Do you think sterilizing autistic boys and girls helps with that?
>It's nice if you have children here that support you but it's not necessary to survive.
Without children, we as a people have no future. Just remember that when you downplay these issues in the future.
>is pretty generalizing. There are enough churches in my country that either don't talk about it at all or are very much against it
It's widespread enough at this point that I feel comfortable generalizing. And the churches that don't promote it will in the future, as they follow the trends like any other organization.
>Free speech regarding laws doesn't exist in any country in the world afaik.
What are you talking about? The US has free speech laws (that a certain tribe of people is quickly dismantling piece by piece). It's why you go to jail in Germany for denying Holocaust, but not in America. If you mean that you can't blatantly slander people or print lies, then yeah, duh.
>you will most like feel them in your lifetime.
I honestly don't think so. I'm not completely oblivious to changes but even if I'm working again, stuff like that has no real place here in the workplace as far as my experience goes.
If I have a co-worker who's a dude that's transistioned and wants me to call him she, I'm not running home crying, I just do it and be done with it.
>Do you think sterilizing autistic boys and girls helps with that?
The amount of people undergoing that procedure is so minimal that it won't have any impact at all.
>we as a people have no future.
What do I care about the future of humans? I'm trying to not make the world a shittier place by me existing and that's all that will ever come from me. Most people saying they care about the future of humankind don't really give a shit, they just want attention.
Churches are dying in general and that's a really bad thing. They completely missed the point where they could've modernized themselves and now they're overcompensating. It doesn't help that there are so many abuse issues with them either.
My experiences with different churches have always been very positive, although I'm not part of any religion.
>that a certain tribe of people is quickly dismantling piece by piece
>can't blatantly slander people or print lies
That's exactly the point. That's not really ultimate free speech and I don't really see any problems doing something about the second part. Don't forget that social media isn't protected by free speech, those are private companies.
>Once you start policing what people can or can't say
I mostly see this issue with people thinking social media is their life. When I have certain stances on topics where people don't agree with, I either don't talk with them about it or I'm looking for other people. I've never had the experience of my free speech being restricted apart from laws regarding stuff like incitment to violence etc.
>I've never had the experience of my free speech being restricted
Regarding real life, not some private website where I agreed to the TOS.
And while the discussion has been pretty interesting, I'm going to play some Morrowind now, have a good one.
Sure, you too. It was nice talking to you.
Also, just an aside, but you do realize that you just advocated for trusting children and parents to know what's best for them, essentially, while also making the opposite argument that they cannot be trusted with non-censored speech. So which one is it?
>cannot be trusted with non-censored speech
I was talking about groups on social media that are formed in regards to inciting violence against other people. I don't care about people voicing their opinions but there are limits to that.
Inciting violence isn't in the realm of free speech.
>I was talking about groups on social media that are formed in regards to inciting violence against other people. I don't care about people voicing their opinions but there are limits to that.
I understand, but what you fail to see is that it's all the same thing. Once you start policing what people can or can't say (outside of breaking the law, and sometimes even within that context), it never stops. And by now I think we've learned that slippery slope is not a fallacy.
>The thing that most people really don't get in my opinion is that the average guy isn't really affected by any of it.
That's the thing, isn't it. I have no stake in this society, but everyone sees we're not building towards a sustainable society. I guess we're in a transitional period. I think we're going towards something better. And we are the people stuck in between two periods. Just spitballing here: but if you're in a totalitarian regime, the state tells you what to do. And if you obey the rules you will be looked after.
In a Western society today: you have to be the mule, with no feel that you are working towards a common goal. You work and you get shit on. You can be the mule and you can get kicked.
No respect in the home and no respect in society. So there is no reason to invest. I'm the scum of the earth anyway.
That's why having kids young, for better or worse, is what keeps a society going. The more the merrier. If shoddy Europeans fricked more, we wouldn't have had to import all these bulls. So it's on you Hanz.
>working towards a common goal
When has that ever really been the case? Maybe it's something some people feel but if I go to work, I do that mainly because it's fun and I get paid.
I don't really care if society is a little bit better because of it or not. Nobody expects me to do something to further the goals of my country, all that is expected is that I try to find work and not hurt other people physically or psychological regarding certain laws.
Also called "Rechte und Pflichten" (Rights and obligations).
>If shoddy Europeans fricked more, we wouldn't have had to import all these bulls.
I think they're fricking more than ever, they're just not willing to get any children. One thing the GDR did way better than West Germany was ensuring high birthrates while women were working because they put a huge emphasis on child daycare.
If there would be more of that today I think the birth rates would climb again from native people.
>I go to work, I do that mainly because it's fun
I'd expect nothing less.
>all that is expected is that I try to find work and not hurt other people physically or psychological regarding certain laws.
Sounds very Swedish
>I think they're fricking more than ever, they're just not willing to get any children
It's hard to draw a general conclusion from all of this. All my friend's parents come from broken homes because of adultery. Save for two. All of my friends are still married after ten years, being the gloomy guy that I am, I draw the relation to economical insecurity and that, for me, must be the reason why my friend's their marriages are more succesfull than their parrents. They stick together because there is less money. Our parents could do anything and just frick around. So it's more functional than Love. Which isn't bad necessarily. Our parents still had the church and community life. I'm babbling on, but from what I can see is everyone is feeling the insecurity. I've built my high castle. But what is it for? If you're not going to be with anybody.
Do your own research and stop saying moronic shit. No one is impressed by ''dude, they couldn't have put on the suits, source: trust me bro.''
I looked it up and Apollo 11 didn't remove their suits at all. The space suits were put on them before they got on the shuttle and removed after they got off the shuttle.
>astronaut suits were so bulky
Which ones? Apollo 11? Apollo 17? I don't know shit about the subject and I doubt you do either. I would assume after Apollo 11 when they shit and piss and slept in the space suits they would have improved the design and gotten better.
Have you looked up videos of people putting on space suits? Have you looked at the footage of Apollo 11 crew wearing their space suits on earth? On earth they don't look that bulky and hard to walk around in, the appearance is different in low gravity and the awkward movements in low gravity make it look cumbersome while on earth it looks like a perfectly normal suit.
You're the expert, you tell me everything you know about space suits.
when the second set of moon landings plant their flag next to one of the apollo landing sites the seethe and cope of turd world cucks will be easily on the level of Russhitia getting absolutely shit on in Ukraine
its fake bro. time to grow up.
we are not living in the WWE america rocks years any more. these are the globohomosexual years
wow, nice cool picture of... something
two more weekerinos and you'll go to mars
The point deniers are trying to get across to believers is that there is ZERO peripheral vision in space travel. The camera lens is directly focused on what is fakeable. If it were real the scale of what they could and would have shown us has such a wider field of view that to believe in the narrowness of the fakery they show us is beyond reasonability.
>what are some moviecumentaries
>UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>america is so gay that their people believe their biggest achievement was fake.