File: 1738546454730908s.jpg (5 KB, 241x250)

5 KB JPG

>1960
>flies to the moon with the power of a pocket calculator
>2025
>can't fly to the moon with the power of quantum computing

File: United_States_per_capita_(...).png (34 KB, 1024x768)

34 KB PNG

>>16799361
energy usage per capita peaked in the 1970s, it's not that hard to believe, we have just been distracted by shiny things and key jiggling since then

>>16799361
That's the power of diversity.

>>16799361
perhaps computing power isnt the most crucial factor. ever think of that?

>>16799359
Lunar dust never settles, OP.
Your thread is without hope.
Let it die with Kubrik.

>>16799359
All recordings of the moon landing were actual recordings shot on set at an air force base in front of a live studio audience.

>>16799708
That would explain the laugh track

>>16799359
They're all fake.

File: 191823.png (488 KB, 721x735)

488 KB PNG

>>16799763
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y
How did they fake the hammer and the feather?

>>16799359
had the landing been faked, the soviets would have uncovered it and told the world

>>16799763
whats your top reason for calling them fake?

>>16800310
>[W]hat[']s your top reason for calling them fake?
No Yankee was ever on the Moon.
You filthy propagandists have more energy than I do.

>>16800375
thats not a reason

>>16799777
giant vacuum chamber

>>16800520
What if instead of building a giant vacuum chamber and a set to fake the moon landing on, we just popped over to the moon to fake it there?

>>16800555
>nooooo thats impossible!!!!
>no reasons offered
just wait

>>16800559
anon, you don't have any reasons/proof yourself. you're just throwing out hypotheticals. if you're going to get upset that others aren't going to "disprove" your hypotheticals that you have no proof/evidence for, you can go back to /pol/ where the other emotionally-charged peabrains never get challenged on their positions. things work a little differently here on /sci/

>>16800592
all the evidence is right there. the 20000 HD photos. dozens of hours of 16mm film footage. all the vehicles on display for you to go look at. thousands of lunar rock samples worked on by people from universities all over the world.

what have moonhoax cultists got to offer?
>the shadows look wrong to me
>the van allen belts are impossible to get past
>rocket engines dont work in a vacuum
>i dont understand how thermal balance works so naturally the cameras would have broken
>etc

>things work differently here on /sci/
so why haven't you stated any actual reasons so that a reasonable discussion can take place?

>>16800555
that wouldn't be very fake would it now?

>>16800619
i think you misinterpreted my post. i know the moon landings were real. i was mocking the guy that said it was a giant vacuum chamber but didn't back it up with anything

>>16800639
i see now. it can be hard to pick up on that kind of thing sometimes because too many people actually think like your post.

>>16800520
that sounds insanely expensive, and they'd need real spacesuits too
couldn't they just not do this specific demonstration and save the money and effort?

>>16799364
that was when all vestiges of the US gold standard ended and the ratio of spending on useful to useless things started falling to 0

>>16800619
You mean the petrified wood moon rock given to Holland? That is the real moon rock?
Or do you mean soil samples that don't have matching composition across countries? Is that what you are referring to?
Or do you mean the photos that NASA paints black?
Just curious.

>>16799361
>1960-1969
>flies to the moon with a blank check unlimited budget in a decade long, cutting edge breakneck paced project that cost several lives
>2025
>can't fly to the moon because they stopped making the rockets capable of lifting anything that could fly to the moon with a crew and land and return 50 years ago and nobody's funding them to make replacements

>>16800935
>You mean the petrified wood moon rock given to Holland? That is the real moon rock?
lets talk about that in more detail since you clearly never have.

https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2017/07/98-how-come-moon-rock-donated-to.html

File: 555.png (112 KB, 808x1270)

112 KB PNG

>>16801105
That blog post is from 2017, and simply states that the goodwill trophy rocks are genuine, with no actual analysis.
The first study into their authenticity I could find was from December 2024.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01961-z
The Netherlands understandably wanted to make sure at least one of the gifts we gave them were real.

>>16799787
They would have posted a better picture the first time!

Serious question: how far do moon landing deniers believe we've gotten with respect to space? Do you believe there are satellites orbiting Earth? Do you believe humans have been into space at all? Do you believe humans have orbited Earth and returned safely? Do you believe probes have been crashed into the surface of the moon? Do you believe unmanned rovers have landed safely on the surface of the moon?

>>16801126
Depends , some belive that its a radiation or firmament problem , but otherwise no problemo.

Others think we could do it now but not then.

Their are even ones that think the moon landing was made using magic and thats why they had to fake it , but I have only seen this once.

Some people think we are so more advanced in space and the fake moonlanding is a coverop.

And you can't forget the clasic anti space flat earther , even though space being fake or the earth being flat , both would make going to the moon easier.

File: flat.jpg (74 KB, 960x627)

74 KB JPG

>>16801177
>flat earther
no problem for satellites

>>16800619
And the original footage and the telemtry data right?
>worked on by universities
According to whom? Have you ever met these people or do you just believe the masons on TV?

File: illust_58265647_20250929_(...).png (484 KB, 692x978)

484 KB PNG

>it's another midwit fake moon landing thread

File: 19601413_1065620106902225(...).jpg (44 KB, 720x466)

44 KB JPG

>>16801242
There is no telecom hardware outside the gas chamber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw

>>16801253
>the original footage
you can see all the original footage. theres no footage lost, just a slightly higher resolution version which youd call fake anyway based on the exact same level of evidence as you call the even higher resolution footage from the other landings fake - nothing at all.
>telemetry
which you have no idea what it even is, and which you'd just call fake anyway because faking a bunch of tank pressures and battery voltages would be trivially easy.

you know that you would do this...in fact that you DO this already with lots of other things, merely proving that you cant help but argue in a completely disingenuous fashion.

there is also some telemetry data from the EVA suit data streams available online.
>its faaaake!!!1
of course

> Have you ever met these people
have i met thousands of geologists from hundreds of institutions around the world? no, strangely enough i haven't. im sure you imagine that they have all been blackmailed/threatened etc into never breaking what might be the most sensational news of their careers because they are all being closely controlled by the evil nasa.

File: IMG_20241225_194555_122.jpg (79 KB, 1024x1280)

79 KB JPG

>>16801671
>you can see all the original footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNAHcMMOHE8

>>16801820
just at a slightly lower resolution. thats all. you want higher resolution than any of that? look at the much larger and higher res amount of footage for the later missions
>waah thats fake tooooo
niggers

File: 29468317_1853727514672230(...).jpg (116 KB, 960x898)

116 KB JPG

>>16801832
>niggers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeH7eAEnJQQ

>>16799359
The whole thing is fake, they reshot the whole thing on earth. They did go to the moon but that footage the whole world was sitting at home watching in 1969 was fake lmfao. So is the JFK shooting footage. In the real footage there's a tree and you can see a man standing behind it, in the footage they show us the whole tree is gone.

>>16801915
the shape of the earth is meaningless to anyone building those structures, especially the wall.

>>16801671
>just a slightly higher resolution version
Odd thing to throw away the highest resolution version of possibly the most important footage ever captured. You think the government agency with billions in funding just needed the tape?
>which you have no idea what it even is
Scrap the altitudes, pressures, velocities, accelerations, temperatures, attitudes of the most important voyage in history? Is this done for ships and planes on Earth?
Also
>faking... trivially easy
You lie as easily as you breath. It's the thing that would give it away, especially if and when humans do make it there/again.
I was uncertain some months ago, but the more I think about how absurd throwing away this data would be, the clearer it is. I know, I know, I'm supposed to believe but unfortunately for the cult, I have a brain.

>>16801976
>You think the government agency with billions in funding just needed the tape?
you can read what happened with that anon. just a screw up by the archivers and people assuming that there was no way to extract the video from the unified telemetry stream. of course its not good but mistakes happen. whats funny is that moonhoaxies hang on this point no end without ever being able to say why it even matter? do you think you'd be able to see all the fakery with a bit more resolution or something? what about the other footage and HD photos that were taken? what about the footage from all the other landings which is even higher res that what was lost?
did they massively upgrade all the fakery sound stages for the next missions only a few months later?
>Scrap the altitudes, pressures, velocities, accelerations, temperatures, attitudes of the most important voyage in history?
not all that was even contained in the telemetry. you can find some of it in the mission reports. but again, you guys call everything fake ifyou have it anyway. why wouldn't you call those tables of numbers fake too?
> It's the thing that would give it away,
lol, hardly. you think they can't model the entire flight and make numbers for it? out of the other side of your mouth you'll next be telling me that they could create entire simulated flights for the guys in mission control and that they couldnt tell the difference.

how could they do that would also being able to simulate the telemetry?

>I think about how absurd throwing away this data would be,
what would it be needed for? you dont even know what avaliable and what isnt. take the altitude, or distances between earth and the craft and the moon. all that was tracked from the ground using radar and can be found in the documentation if you want it. You dont want it, and you wont accept it in all likelihood.

>>16802004
>just a screw up by the archivers
So they could land men on the moon but couldn't handle video tapes correctly?
>a bit more resolution
Yes, a higher resolution would add to believability.
>you can find some of it in the mission reports
Not all of it?
>why wouldn't you call those tables of numbers fake too?
Because they could be scrutinised by anyone. They could be made available for the world to see, which is a problem if they are falsified.
It is quite funny, some supposed rocks were brought into my school years ago, a little like a holy relic would be shown to the congregation kek.
You don't think it at all suspicious that the bulk of the evidence is missing or destroyed? What evidence do we have? Moon rocks (some of which have been identified as fake), grainy video footage, high resolution photos with some dubious features, and retroreflectors. Have you ever bounced off the reflectors? Has anyone you know? Or did you just see it on TV and that was good enough? Would anyone outside of a small group of people have the ability to do so and measure the results? Also obtain a license to operate the lasers... issued by? Then, say they found that there was no retroreflection, would you ever hear about it, or would they just be another failed experiment and smear piece on Wikipedia?
>what would it be needed for
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220007267
"The reconstructed trajectory is important in the crew training effort for program Artemis"
I would like to dedicate as much time to this as glowies get paid to, it is a shame they lose their job if they get any critical thoughts. But I don't have time to investigate freemason stage shows for free.

File: image0.jpg (45 KB, 1080x1077)

45 KB JPG

>>16801973
Any 2 plumb-lines will set parallel to each other regardless of distance. Air pressure is evidence we are traped inside a gas chamber. We live inside architecture. The globe model is a paradox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi8eTnk844E

>>16802074
>video tapes correctly?
back up archives of the unified telemetry stream. they got sent in from the receiving station in australia and put for reuse instead. its a mistake. sometimes people make mistakes.
>Yes, a higher resolution would add to believability.
but not for the other 5 landings?
>Not all of it?
not all of the raw telemetry no. its not online anyway, though it was used to create those after mission reports.
>ome of which have been identified as fake
like which? the same old meme of the dutch ones which were never given by nasa? have you ever even looked at how they appear and compared them to actual moonrock gifts?
>Would anyone outside of a small group of people have the ability to do so and measure the results?
the equipment is expensive and required a lot of expertise to build and operate. of course, that means its fake.
>"The reconstructed trajectory is important in the crew training effort for program Artemis"
the trajectory for the flights is known anon. i already mentioned that the vehicle were tracked constantly from the ground. you can fine this info in the reports. people have created charts and animations showing the flight path from this data.

>>16802120
thats not true. look into reciprocal zenith angles.

>>16802120
>>16801915
>>16801388
Get lost flatearth golems
Aryan Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere and calculated its diameter
FE is from the talmud
Apollo 11 did not land on the moon

Of course the Apollo missions went to space, there's too much evidence and too many accounts to reasonably say otherwise.
But where did they go, if the moon is an immaterial astral projection?
Obviously, if they were up in the sky for that long, they must have breached the firmament somehow. Does anyone know what the outside of the dome looks like?
The popular idea is that it's totally transparent, but after billions of years of meteor impacts, the surface would certainly be covered with dusty and rocks by now.

I think the explanation that best takes into account the available information is that the supposed "moon landing" recordings actually take place just outside of our atmosphere, on top of the rocky surface of the firmament.

File: Artemis_2_map_march_2023.jpg (385 KB, 1920x1080)

385 KB JPG

>>16799361
CAN fly to the moon in 2025.
Or more specifically, did fly to the moon in 2022 (uncrewed test) and it's looking like they will do so again in early 2026 and with the crew onboard

File: 16113950_1015592551615391(...).jpg (96 KB, 960x730)

96 KB JPG

>>16802179
>look into reciprocal zenith angles
Curvature premisse must be confirmed to be true before considering reciprocal zenith angles.

>>16802181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWsr0do3vo

File: Illustration3.jpg (3.16 MB, 3416x1690)

3.16 MB JPG

>>16802483
Here's a fun thing that you can do:
Use Google's advanced image search to find a very high resolution photo of the sea, with the horizon center frame.
Load that image into a photo editor, and transform it strictly along the horizontal axis. If it's high enough resolution (I used a 9000px wide image here) you'll be able to see a curve!
Original photo: https://pxhere.com/en/photo/989678
It was uploaded in 2017, before AI image generation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8MboQzXO1o

>>16801126

"Space" is not a place that one can "go to". The idea is preposterous and was only touted by the post-WW2 World Government. For a short while, as you can see, since even they cannot fake it for too long.

>>16799777

Special effects (paper hammer, etc.). Photography BEGAN as a means of trickery.

>>16802483
>Curvature premisse must be confirmed to be true before considering reciprocal zenith angles.
lol

>>16802181
>FE is from the talmud
this is just ignorant though since it also contains arguments for the earth being a globe. it has both. the ancient chinks also seem to have believed the earth was flat and that was long before any talmud was written.

>>16802179
I love these threads because the spaceanons really know their stuff

>doesn't believe the moon landing happened despite mountains of evidence
>believes a god named Yahweh created the universe because some starving desert retards wrote it down thousands of years ago

File: IMG_6844.jpg (174 KB, 1571x1074)

174 KB JPG

>>16802627
Back in 2019 i went to the nearest beach after watching some flat earth videos and there was no curvature to be found.

There is no denying that curvature can be found in images loaded into a editor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRK40NquEaA

>>16801298
I don't get the appeal.

>>16803046
Can you count grains of sand from 10 feet away?
Why would you expect to be able to measure an extremely slight curve with your eyes?
You should check out that video I linked, pretty hard to explain it without curvature.

File: observable curvature.webm (2.7 MB, 640x360)

2.7 MB WEBM

>>16803171
>Can you count grains of sand from 10 feet away?
No
>Why would you expect to be able to measure an extremely slight curve with your eyes?
If it's big enough for ships to hide behind, it must be big enough for eyes to see.
>You should check out that video I linked, pretty hard to explain it without curvature.
Look. I not disputing curvature on a digital screen.

There was no digital screens avaliable in 17th century for Newton to observe curvature so neither him, Earthnotsees or any other ballearther in between could've possibly observe curvature you claim to exist at sea level. Such idea as "curvature upon sea level" can only by product of imagination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R82kwLwEAEg

File: 91153.png (459 KB, 412x677)

459 KB PNG

>>16803284
> it must be big enough for eyes to see
Why?
If I gifted you a flatedge from a hardware store, but beforehand I used a vice to bend it by 1/10 of a degree, you would never notice unless you compared it to a true flat edge.
To pretend otherwise is hubris on your part.

>Look. I not disputing curvature on a digital screen.
Not what I'm talking about.
>https://youtu.be/y8MboQzXO1o?t=374
Explain where the green ferry and the sand bank are going as he raises and lowers the camera.

File: 17352090_1818098725121836(...).jpg (27 KB, 564x363)

27 KB JPG

>>16803341
>Why?
>If I gifted you a flatedge from a hardware store, but beforehand I used a vice to bend it by 1/10 of a degree, you would never notice unless you compared it to a true flat edge.
>To pretend otherwise is hubris on your part.
See? This is why i went to the beach in the first place. One does not bend sea level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29lzibkKeAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD-uBaoiNE8

>Explain where the green ferry and the sand bank are going as he raises and lowers the camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX55FEuVmeo

>>16799361
>muh quantum computing
You don't even know what that is. You're just saying random buzzwords to appear technical and smart or something

File: xvfsdf.png (346 KB, 394x638)

346 KB PNG

>>16803492
Why are you linking cartoon logic?
The guy in the horizon video has a laughable understanding of not only perspective, but his own examples too.
I've studied and used perspective quite a lot as an artist. Objects do not disappear bottom up on a flat plane no matter how far away they are. If you can zoom in infinitely, you can keep a retreating object totally in view forever. There should NEVER be a point at which you can see the top half, but not the bottom half, unless it's behind something (like the curve of the earth).

Man, I'm starting to think flat earthers are fucking retards.

File: curvizon.png (388 KB, 972x1742)

388 KB PNG

>>16803536
>unless it's behind something (like the curve of the earth).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFyrOWQdJ10

Baumgartner said that he saw curvature during Red bull Stratos, but flatearthers exposed divergence between footage from the 2 cameras at the balloon. Even black science men went full damage control and said curvature is cannot be seen from that height.

What kind of magic curvature hide ships from the observer at the shore, but requires fisheyed lens to be observed +100,000ft above sea level?

>>16799361
>1960s
>space program has the full support of the government and limitless funding
>2020s
>government looks for any excuse to cut support to the space program and half the people in charge of funding think the earth is fucking flat

File: 1736800093553057.png (74 KB, 353x490)

74 KB PNG

>>16803562
>space program has the full support of the government and limitless funding
this is the part people seem to have the most trouble with. nasa's entire budget in 2023 was only $23 billion.

>>16801117
>The first study into their authenticity I could find was from December 2024.
funny since this particular conspiracy is at least two decades old

File: 39kmredbull.jpg (38 KB, 625x554)

38 KB JPG

>>16803559
>. Even black science men went full damage control and said curvature is cannot be seen from that height.
why are flat earthers the only people who ever even think about what some guy on the TV says? its as if they have no other point of reference for anything which is a shame because if he said that then he was wrong...or taken out of context, which with flat earthers is often the case.
You'd certainly get an impression of the curve at 39km altitude given a good wide field of view, which baumgartner certainly would have when standing out of the hatch.

File: tftftftyu.png (3.3 MB, 1288x2832)

3.3 MB PNG

>>16803818
> only the gdp of the average country guys !!!
the sls program took 11 years from start to first flight. that's 253 gorillions.
excuses, excuses... it's almost like nasa fans are lawyers tasked with defending nasa but without pay.

Declining cultures that get too far away from their greatest accomplishments start mocking/dismissing them to evade the confrontation that they've become shit

File: 52320.png (74 KB, 283x289)

74 KB PNG

>>16804812
The Apollo program took 11 years and cost $321.7 billion in 2025 dollars.
The SLS program so far has cost $35.4 billion in 2025 dollars, from 2011 to 2024, which is about half of NASA's yearly budget at it's peak in 1964.

>image
You can see the plume in the ascent stage footage at the very beginning.
I don't know if you're aware, but the moon has very low gravity. The module only needed a short burst to start rising.

File: pme.png (51 KB, 737x342)

51 KB PNG

>>16803559
You didn't address the perspective problem.
Explain in your own words without a retarded slop video how the bottom of an object can disappear first on a flat plane.

>>16801011
>blogspot
I accept your concession.

>>16804889
>genetic fallacy

>>16799359
The Moon Landing obviously happened because the Soviets never denied it. If the only people who would benefit from the landing being fake said it was real then why should i believe it wasn't?

>>16804983
these guys will just expand the conspiracy and say that the russkies kept quiet for reasons x y and z. The landings happened because theres no reason why they couldnt happen. Theres no technological reason it couldnt be done, and theres no other reason either.

File: 20993081_1021438884674049(...).jpg (130 KB, 720x960)

130 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CvARr3YSAc

>>16803959
>they have no other point of reference
>I can only show curvature on pixels

>>16804846
The vanishing point at center of view of the observer is the limit of vision. An observer 6ft above sea level looking at a cruise ship at distance will see way more of the structure above eye level than below it.

For every inch of the structure between eye level and sea level to disappear into the vanishing point , another inch above eye level will disappear too.

>>16804950
Read the entire library of congress and then you will realize why you are wrong.

>>16805024
Even if this were all true, this is just shifting the burden while not demonstrating the claim. Sad. Many such cases.

>>16805695
its demonstrated as fully as anything can be. its sad that you and others are not able to understand it all.

>>16800555
>What if instead of building a giant vacuum chamber and a set to fake the moon landing on, we just popped over to the moon to fake it there?
You can neither fake the low gravity nor the lighting of the sun.

>>16802483
Maybe it's a good idea to take at least one look at the sea in your life. Better do at night where the lighthouses behind the horizon shine into the sky instead onto you. Btw. sure all of you retards are to dumb to grasp but you cannot see a sunrise on a flat earth.

>>16803284
>If it's big enough for ships to hide behind, it must be big enough for eyes to see.
It's a joke i hope for you.

>>16803341
>hubris
Nailed it. FE is just about pride and nothing else.

File: 12027550_476085282591211_(...).jpg (106 KB, 960x960)

106 KB JPG

>>16806038
You missed my >>16803046 post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rJEjg2HTXM

>>16806192
>At the latitude of Sacramento, California, a 1,000 yd (910 m) northward shot would be deflected 2.8 in (71 mm) to the right.
Man, everything you post and link is completely stupid and inane.

>>16806192
How will you see a curvature when the horizon is in all directions at same distance? Please go to Disney if you are unable to grasp simple geometry

>>16800555
They built the giant vacuum chamber on the moon to make it look real

File: 53903832_988278644704920_(...).jpg (135 KB, 960x960)

135 KB JPG

>>16806429
>How will you see a curvature when the horizon is in all directions at same distance?
That's the point. With no obsevable curvature, it is obvious the ball earth model did not came from observation. Bendy water is just an assumption.

By the same logic, one can go to a black neighborhood to observe blacks and assume that he cannot observe black nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aow8hVpdSHQ

Well this thread got shitted up by fag earthers.

So what causes the Flat earth retardness
The inability to understand the scale of the planet?

>>16799359
>cold war
>enemy fakes moon landing thus "winning" in some regard
>soviets refuse to point out American lies

just this logic alone disproves your retarded theory, move this shit to /x/

>>16806545
>That's the point. With no obsevable curvature, it is obvious the ball earth model did not came from observation. Bendy water is just an assumption.
There is a speech that 4channers are high IQ larping as idiots. Seeing it that way you are pretty good. Geometrical the line proves nothing, neither disk nor globe .But on a disk earth the line is not observable because you see it through thousands of miles/km atmosphere. If you raise your stupid head to the stars you can see that blurring effect even just through a few miles/km atmo.

>>16806582
IMO there are certain levels to intelligence, flat earthers are 9/10 on the lower end of the bell curve and that comes with as you said the inability to understand certain things like the scale of things but also Hypotheticals, Counterfactual thinking, Conditional logic, Nuance and context, Abstraction hierarchy, Probabilistic reasoning, Meta-level reasoning and Emotional detachment.

They quite literally don't have the brain power to understand certain things, kind of scary when you think these people walk among us and can vote.

>>16799716
Also fake, btw. All canned.

>>16806599

Angloids and mongoloids comprise the world's most long-standing alliance and libidinal friendship.

File: 16252197_2199934143564570(...).jpg (129 KB, 720x720)

129 KB JPG

>>16806555
Yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWfd4U2O1hc

>>16806599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cgCwZNTKIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyJ7r4w5C9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk1JWWu-GF0

Space and nukes are just an excuses to take taxpayer money.

>>16806600
>neither disk nor globe
I'm not a diskearther. See my post >>16802120. Nobody was ever been outside the architecture. Regardless of what shape Earth is from outside, the surface we walk upon is level.

>>16806177
exactly. scratch a flat earther and you find a seething angry little retard who wants to think he's the smartest freethinkingest guy in the room. every single time. you see it constantly in the way they always talking everyone else being sheep, brainwashed etc etc.

>>16806555
not every moonhoaxie is a flat earther, but every flat earther is surely a moonhoaxie. when you spend some time looking at the kinds of 'evidence' both of these groups use you soon notice that they are pretty much exactly the same sorts of errors of thought and simple misunderstandings/ignorances.

they are a very well matched pair of beliefs for this reason.

File: VID-20251005-WA0014.mp4 (1.9 MB, 848x474)

1.9 MB MP4

>>16806717
>>16806725
Ad hominem
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PT0ggXl2qRA

>>16806894
such things can still be quite accurate

>>16806896
As accurate as it may be, that does not help the ball earth argument.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kl4Q2RDWvTo

>>16806912
its accuracy is exactly why it helps.

>>16799359
It's completely normal to be jumping and goofing around all over the place on a surface where your bodily fluids would be boiling and death would be near instantaneous if you lacerated your suit. If they actually went to the moon they wouldn't act like that, as if they were at the local park, it's clear they know they are in no danger whatsoever, actual astronauts on the moon would be extremely cautious because again all that is protecting you from either boiling alive or becoming an icicle is your suit

>>16806971
>why did they jump around so much its sooo dangerous
>why didn't they jump around so much, i'd have been going 8ft in the air so it must be fake!!
those suits were pretty tough anon. many layers of woven kevlar and fiberglass, plus the completely separate internal pressure suit, plus carrying an emergency patch kit and having large reserves of air to maintain pressure. and remember, they'd been training in those things for years on earth in all kinds of situations, including time outside in terrain selected to be similar to that found on the moon. they'd tripped and stumbled and fallen over in those things so many times in earth gravity and really gotten to know what they could take.

when i watch the footage it looks right for guys who know what their hear can take. also, you'll notice that the earlier landings had the guys being far less adventurous than the later ones. that goes right along with how they landed in more challenging locations as each mission further tested and proved the equipment. The LM was quite a bit heavier on A16-17 than it was on A11 for example.

as usual, the more you know about this stuff the less inexplicable it seems.

File: 0220titled.png (293 KB, 710x562)

293 KB PNG

>>16799359
>>16799364
>>16799366
>>16799605

https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=BBbpDbUHrokFovZ-&t=1047

>>16806971

True.

>>16807615
a retarded collection of lies and ignorance. can't believe anyone takes it seriously. happy to discuss whichever the 'questions' you want.

>>16799359

Earth is flat with a dome.
God exists.

Aliens don't exist.
Space isn't real.
Never went to the moon.
Nukes don't exist.
Evolution is a lie.
Germ Theory is a lie.

The world is ruled by secret societies that worship Satan. Jews/Jesuits/Freemasons/Illuminati are Gnostics and Kabbalists. Masters at deception. One satanic philosophy is inverting reality.

They make you think you live on a spinning ball.
They make you think you're just an animal.
They make you think there's a deadly virus out there.

Luciferians are behind liberalism, feminism, socialism, marxism, communism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, social decay and degradation.

They despise, and want to destroy:
- Religion, specifically Christianity
- Family
- Nation
- Property

Hence these civilizational concepts are under relentless assault to make way for their satanic New World Order led by the Antichrist after a fake alien invasion known as project Blue Beam.

ALL of these conspiracies hinge on the original, mother of all psyops and hoaxes: Earth being a ball floating in nothing, revolving around the sun (remember, the satanic cabal are pagan sun worshippers..)

SHADOWBANNED FLAT EARTH VIDS/RESOURCES:
https://pastebin.com/jk2hAdmh

>>16807669
Thanks for the list of video to report

File: okay-bro-sure.gif (437 KB, 240x240)

437 KB GIF

>>16807669
>Still no book
Do flat earthers actually have no book which they reference?

>>16800619
>rocket engines dont work in a vacuum
Why should the principle of conservation of momentum not work in a vacuum?

>>16807016
No world class exploratory team acts like that you disingenious fucktard. All the footage looks like parody/comedy.

File: 1651958227233.png (51 KB, 491x585)

51 KB PNG

>>16807722
>people have never been in this situation
>also I know exactly how people in this situation would behave

>>16807728
>when in doubt during your multimillion dollar task, act like a reckless clown

File: gkled.png (627 KB, 1195x896)

627 KB PNG

>>16807658
maybe start from the first... one you retarded ignorant... and slowly go down to 42

>>16807669
Unfortunately anon immediately died from covid a day after posting this bevause he was too retarded to appreciate the technology of the generation he was born into, making God very angry and condemning his soul to eternal hell for the sin of suicide and pride.

>>16807728
All am saying, get it to shake a sample bottle with sand on mars, the sound and movement alone should activate the weather

In noticeable ways

>>16807782
Mocking someone last words to hide local cops beating up cheating husbands during the lockdown

>>16807717
its a thing flat earthers often say

>>16807722
dont be such a moron
>All the footage looks like parody/comedy.
you mean all the footage youve seen contained in moonhoax and flat earther made videos where they speed stuff up and play stuff backwards to appeal to your ignorance?

>>16807765
maybe just come right out with it yourself and we can discuss it. why wont you even post it?

>>16807615
Look at the ISS astronauts whenever they are asked about their experiences on the ISS, they are glowing, happy, they love talking about it. Now look at the Apollo astronauts here, they look crushed and depressed, they struggle to answer basic questions about their experience, the body language is so clear, they feel guilt and shame and they cannot wait for the charade to be over

File: one step.jpg (1.23 MB, 3024x4032)

1.23 MB JPG

>>16807016
There is no way for a man carrying some fancy air conditioner to jump like that in a vaccum medium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcGxFvOoUTU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU_fcD1yPzw

drone strike flat earth grifter compounds

>>16808148
why are you being so stupid? is it a hobby or something? you do it for fun?

File: happy.jpg (507 KB, 1882x1342)

507 KB JPG

>>16807986
you're talking such shit, you know that? You look at a some cherry picked frames from the press conference several weeks after they got back and have been in quarantine doing constant debriefs and interviews and stuff, and then spout your ignorant bullshit. quit being such a fucking retard.

>>16808148
Can you explain why you think the second video is significant?

>>16808585
The entire press conference is on youtube, the look dejected and crushed the whole time. They also struggle to answer basic questions about what they saw or felt there. The body language is beyond clear and experts in body language have analyzed the video and said as much

It's stil llike 50/50 sending rover on the moon in 2025, let alone sending humans on the moon in the late 60s/early 70s

File: it-get-worse.gif (3.7 MB, 498x498)

3.7 MB GIF

>>16808691
Ok I was too optimist even it seems

>In the last decade (2014–2024), 7 rover-carrying or rovers-only missions attempted to reach the Moon, with 2—China's Yutu-2 and India's Chandrayaan-3 rover—successfully operating on the surface, while 5—ispace M1 (carrying Rashid rover), Russia's Luna-25, Chandrayaan-2's rover, Israel's Beresheet lander (no rover), and a lander from a Japanese mission—crashed

>>16808702
did they account for all the cheese making the texture sticky to the rockets?

>>16807708
No map, no book.

>>16807722
You're clearly very smart =P

File: happyhappy.png (357 KB, 998x707)

357 KB PNG

>>16808687
no they dont you absolute lying moron

>>16808687
>experts in body language have analyzed the video and said as much
one guy who said that armstrong was possibly not being completely open and forthcoming about sensitive mission information because soviets. and keep in mind, his entire case is based on his own opinion of how much someone MUST use the first person pronoun.

its not a compelling argument since he didnt look at how armstrong usually talked. i have, and he's simply not a big one to say "i' all the time, especially when he's talking about technical stuff or things that he's had to describe in detail in briefings.

File: IMG_20240805_135415.jpg (63 KB, 1080x960)

63 KB JPG

>>16808594
It seems to be apropriate in this thread. The old one is better in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udeziSUTtIc

File: jpg.png (85 KB, 847x798)

85 KB PNG

>>16808735
The entire press conference is on youtube you disingenuous weasel, you can see for yourself, the majority of the comments remark that they look like they are at a funeral, they don't look at all like people who accomplished a historic feat, they look like people terrified that the charade will be exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI

File: 6f5ra5j6dfr81.jpg (26 KB, 622x348)

26 KB JPG

>>16808702
So we still can't land a rover successfully on the moon most of the times, basically only 20% of the times we can, in the 2020s mind you, but people believe a dozen humans went to the moon and back over several missions with a 100% success rate in the late 60s and early 70s

>>16808791
>if i ignore all the photos of them laughing, smiling and waving when they got back, during the very same press conference, and for months and months afterwards as they toured the entire world
>and the fact they've just come out of a 21 day quarantine endlessly talking about what they did and saw to NASA personnel and others
>and that they were none of them particularly extroverted people anyway
>and had achieved the absolute highest possible goal of their careers and had several weeks for that to sink in, which can lead to depression
>then i can come up with the stupid idea that they were all feeling guilty about faking the landing
so tiresome.

>>16808791
>The subhuman ratpeople leaving comments on YouTube videos agree with me!
this is literally evidence against your argument

also, prelaunch interviews to compare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rLPC8zYfYc

>>16808804
>>and had achieved the absolute highest possible goal of their careers and had several weeks for that to sink in, which can lead to depression
Ahahahhaha

>>16799359
serious question: why do so many skeptics fall into the trap of being dogmatic about contrarian presuppositions
i'm starting to think real skepticism is a fantasy

File: 1045.png (74 KB, 501x413)

74 KB PNG

>https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs
Reminder that only 83% of Americans believe the Earth revolves around the sun.

>>16808870
random person im the street
>i have concerns about how rushed the whole process was
(((researcher)))
>Omg this dude thinks earth is flat!! Nanomachines amirite?
Kill researchers. Behead researchers. Etc..

>>16808876
idk if you can see but those are actually separate questions asked independently of one another
for some reason you accidentally made up a strawman that implied differently so I just wanted to make sure you knew that

>>16808844
>prelaunch interview

Yeah their demeanor would be the same because they knew it was a farce back then too

Meanwhile contrast their body language with that of the astronauts coming back from the ISS, they are radiant, happy, they love talking about it, why? Because they actually were on the ISS, unlike the Apollo astronauts who were never on the moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB3pTbyZHXw

>>16808845
i see you've never actually achieved anything to know what it feels like to have no higher goals to aim for.

>>16808944
all the apollo crews were happy and liked to talk about it. for whatever reason you are deliberately ignoring their behavior right when they arrived back and instead focusing on a single press conference over 3 weeks later, after they've had time to get used to what they did and have exhaustively debriefed it from every conceivable angle over and over again.

you seem to think that serious guys born about 1930 who have faced 20 years of combat and the constant stress of dangerous flying careers and going to the moon and back should behave like modern lightweights on social media, constantly grinning like a fool and joking around etc. What you're seeing in the apollo 11 crew is called reserve and dignity. Its called being a serious and mature guy who doesn't need to enthuse all the time for updoots.

the people who look at their demeanor and think that they look sad or guilty are saying more about themselves than anything else, and its sad really because it shows the kind of role models you're used to.

>>16799359
I feel like one of the main reasons flat earthers don't understand why the Earth is a globe is due to the sheer size of it.

>>16809002
>behavior
He just tricks you in his realm of where a face expression disproves moon landing or earth globe. Typical troll behaviour, if you meddle with idiots they put in their dumb world and beat you with experience,

File: cold war vs 21th century.jpg (95 KB, 1078x957)

95 KB JPG

>>16809069
Wrong. We flatearthers realize the difference between reality and jewish kabbalah presented to us as kids. By being honest to ourselves about what we experience we came to the conclusion that earth is flat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQMliN2oZTg

>another flatnigger seethe thread

>>16809069
But flat earthers are right, they just leave out a few minor details.
You see the Earth is a cylinder. The part we live on is a flat end of the cylinder. On the opposite end of the cylinder is another flat earth.
The same goes with all the planets, the moon, and the sun. They are all cylinders too, but because they are pointing towards us we just see the circular end of their cylinders.
>so we could just step over the edge of flat earth and then slide all the way to the other end of the cylinder, where we would then find opposite earth?
Well yes in theory, but it would take an infinite amount of time as all cylinders are infinitely lone. That's why space is infinite. Has to have enough room to fit in all the cylinders.

The coverup at Nasa wasn't that it was faking shit, but that it was using our space program as a front for ICBM research using Nazi scientists, dipshits.

>>16809792
but what flat earthers experience is merely the real world filtered through their retardedness and ignorance. it is possible to observe things but completely misunderstand your observation and that is very very much the case with what flat earthers laughable call their 'experiments'.

>>16810075
that was hardly even a secret since the manned space program grew directly out of US Army missile development. On the same base even. There is no cover up in this regard.

>>16801117
the discussion is alright but i'm pretty sure this dude used AI to write his conclusion

>>16801117
>>16810549
He's also not talking about the so called fake moon rock that gets brought up all the time by moonhoax believers. He's talking about the actual real sample that was gifted to the country.

File: clown.jpg (89 KB, 1280x1196)

89 KB JPG

>>16810418
>real world filtered through their retardedness and ignorance
You got it backwards. Reality is the filter for retardedness and ignorance. By the time Eratosthenes came up with sticks and shadows, every building and ship built back then worked against his proposition.

If a surface(A) in US is paralel to sea level(B) and another surface(C) in Europe is also paralel to sea level, logic dictates that A and C are paralel to each other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3epH6caPidY

>>16811262
but thats my point; flat earthers dont understand what they are seeing and therefore their half assed logic gives them wrong conclusions.

If you're stood on a very large ball you still get measurements parallel to the surface. But, if you're on a flat surface you dont get the results observed in reality when you measure reciprocal zenith angles.

Basically what im saying is that you're wrong. all you posted is some bullshit you made up, while surveyors measure the real world all the time and know its a globe

https://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Determining+the+Shape+of+the+Earth+with+Zenith+Angle+Measurements&q=Zenith+angles+radius

https://jessekozlowski.wordpress.com/2020/06/09/reciprocal-zenith-angle-projects/

>>16811338
Doesn't matter to them, they do not pour their gossip in every thread because of discussion. learning or even proving a point. They never change arguments for their decades long refuted stupidities. They live in a mental world i want have nothing to do with and their ignorant behavior is shameless, reckless and out of every benefit except that you know after that the human race has lot of unpleasant members wich is nothing new.

>>16811891
cant fault what you're saying here anon

File: 19884134_1021384033646161(...).jpg (50 KB, 750x645)

50 KB JPG

>>16811338
Everything you posted falls short to successful enginieering for thousands of years. You claim my logic to be half assed, but you cannot find a flaw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjxQBd0R2Zk

>>16807930
>its a thing flat earthers often say
I understand that. my question was 'what are they saying why it doesn't work'

File: common sense.jpg (85 KB, 735x418)

85 KB JPG

>>16812386
> Flat head logic.

File: 19990338_1020307052340143(...).jpg (50 KB, 600x508)

50 KB JPG

>>16812597
>flattened globe strawman.jpg

I never said earth is one of many objects in a vaccum. The air we breath is proof the architecture is a gas chamber. All celestial bodies are part of the gas chamber ceiling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrfeuhpx1DA

>>16804983
All of the SSP's decisions were retarded

>>16809069

If you are small enough, can:

1. A plane seem like a sphere? No.
2. A plane seem concave or convex? No.
3. A concave surface seem flat? No.
4. A convex surface seem flat? No.
5. A concave surface seem convex, or vice versa? No.
6. A triangle seem like a rectangle? No.
7. An obtuse angle seem acute or vice versa? No.
8. A right angle seem obtuse or acute? No.
9. A circle seem like a square? No.

...But! A sphere can seem like a plane? No. Totally absurd. No surface or body can seem like another surface or body.

>>16809069
>I feel like one of the main reasons flat earthers don't understand why the Earth is a globe is due to the sheer size of it.
You don't understand why the Earth is a globe, either. The way it works with your sort is that if something is repeated enough, it becomes your "understanding". Just like your "understand" that you need to drink fluoride to have strong teeth, that democracy is the worst system except for all the others, that everything is made out of little energy balls that degenerate into wavelike probability distributions if you keep zooming in on them etc.

File: wow.png (429 KB, 2523x675)

429 KB PNG

>>16812837
I just made a sphere in Blender, made it really big, and zoomed in really close.
Oh look, the surface appears totally flat. Wow. Looks like you're a retard.

>>16812861
>i zoomed in on a point in ms paint and it's a square

Average spaceoid.

>>16812863
But you said that can't happen? That it's totally absurd?
Why the ball look flat when I zoom in??
Explain yourself.

>>16812865

See: >>16812837
>if small enough

It's a matter of scale, not cameras or computers.

File: 83005.png (101 KB, 1591x881)

101 KB PNG

>>16812872
>It's a matter of scale
I agree, if the Earth is big enough, a person would not be able to make out any noticeable curvature at sea level.

>>16812876

The point being that, no, a sphere could not seem like a plane no matter how small the observer is. Neither cameras nor computers are observers, and, indeed, both can make make one body seem like another through various operations.

>>16812883
>Neither cameras nor computers are observers
You can't just declare this, you have to elaborate on why they can't be "observers". Otherwise it's just cope.
I never did "various operations", I just scaled it up and zoomed in. Explain why the Blender viewport isn't an accurate approximation for what you would see if you could infinitely scale up a sphere and look really close at in in real life.

>>16812890

Cameras and computers fabricate images (Logically, this means that they can, indeed, warp the Geometry of the fabricated bodies in indefinite ways, since the fabricated images are not the bodies, and therefore have none of their properties).

>>16812684
I think you need to be put into a real gas chamber for being this gullible.

>>16812894
>Cameras and computers fabricate images
How?
Do you actually know how they work, or are you just repeating whatever makes you feel good?

>>16812914
>How?
By being designed by humans with the explicit intent of being shown what they want to see.

File: 1746573455446316.gif (1.29 MB, 288x395)

1.29 MB GIF

>>16799359
They're both fake and real.

Its fake in that it wasn't a live broadcast.

It's real because they went to the moon to pre-record it, so if the mission ended in disaster it wouldn't be on live TV.

File: slide_046.png (422 KB, 800x600)

422 KB PNG

>>16812917
You didn't actually explain how they work though.
If software engineers can describe exactly how they create images and why they're accurate, but all you can do is say "it was made by humans", why would anyone listen to what you say?

>>16812927
>the point
>...
>...
>...
>...
>your head

>>16812928
Please consult >>16812929 and then >>16812917 again.

>>16812914

Computers: self-explanatory. It generated images out of nothing, There is no referent. Cameras: it generates images by loosely imitating some of the referent's properties. Note that said properties are not operational or even present in the generated image.

File: Sag-768x432[1].jpg (17 KB, 768x432)

17 KB JPG

>>16812837
2 and 3 are a yes.
Earth radius is about 6378000 meters. That gives a sag of 0.19mm per 100m. Can you tell a line that's sagging 0.19mm per 100m ( 0.0075 inches per 328 feet) from a straight line by sight?
Confirm this formula on a number of smaller scales if you don't trust in geometry either.

>>16812938
Meant 3 and 4 are a yes. The ones involving surfaces seeming flat.

>>16812930
You have no idea how this shit works, therefor anything you say about it is meaningless.

>>16812935
>Computers: self-explanatory. It generated images out of nothing, There is no referent. Cameras: it generates images by loosely imitating some of the referent's properties. Note that said properties are not operational or even present in the generated image.
This is total nonsense.

>>16812579
oh. well they will say that the rocket has to push off air in order to work. its got to be a troll but there is it

File: 1645816151848.jpg (110 KB, 1080x1297)

110 KB JPG

>>16812837
you must be trolling

>>16812953
No idea how what shit works? Clearly I have a much better idea how all of it works than you do, since even the simplest points about it that are trivial to me (as they are trivial to any engineer) are completely out of your r/popsci depth.

>>16812960
>https://github.com/blender/blender
Where in the source code does it transform a sphere into a flat plane when you get too close, in order to hide the truth of the flat earth?

>>16812964
Where in any of my posts did I say anything about a sphere being transformed into a flat plane? Also why don't you go ahead and crank up the FOV on your camera to the actual range of human vision and tell me what stuff looks like. :^)

File: 67r56345.png (1.25 MB, 1105x2926)

1.25 MB PNG

>>16812970
>A sphere can seem like a plane? No. Totally absurd. No surface or body can seem like another surface or body.
>By being designed by humans with the explicit intent of being shown what they want to see.
Implies that the program must be modifying the sphere somehow.

>Also why don't you go ahead and crank up the FOV on your camera
OK I turned it up crazy style and it's still flat when I zoom in, just like >>16812959
They show the same result.

>>16812994
Whom are you quoting? That doesn't appear in any of my posts.

>OK I turned it up crazy style
And now I can safely conclude you're a bot because you can't perceive the difference between the image you're getting and reality.

>>16812959

See: >>16812935

>>16812959
>pic proves that the Earth is every possible manifold
Impressive. Very nice. But Occam's Razor says if something looks that way, it's a plane.

>>16800520
How did they get the gravity to be less?

>>16813125
Giant vacuum chamber... in an elevator!

>>16813055
it also says that if someone posts like a troll, they are a troll

File: d45f24dcd5958ca9b9b62693e(...).jpg (832 KB, 2116x1142)

832 KB JPG

>>16812901
>gullible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94Q_x1AMuD8

>>16813246
Pointing our your logical fallacy ("X is a sphere because the surface of a sphere is a manifold and X looks like a manifold") doesn't make him a troll.

>>16813358
refusing to admit that his claim was wrong in the face of several examples kind of does.

>>16813851
He wasn't defending anyone's claim as far as I can tell, simply calling out the logical fallacy of the pic itself, which proves nothing about the shape of anything.

>>16801011
A lot of autists could design a better
rocket than the Saturn 5 or at least
replicate it

>>16813854
his claim was that its impossible for a sphere to look flat. thats all.

>>16813865
>his claim
I don't see any such claim in >>16813055

>>16813872
because thats not where the convo began.
try here instead
>>16812883
>The point being that, no, a sphere could not seem like a plane no matter how small the observer is.

>>16813876
>because thats not where the convo began.
It sure is where the "convo" began: I was simply passing by when I saw your retarded pic and reflected on the worthlessness of an argument that can just as well be used to refute someone who favors a plain old plane as his model over some schizophrenics insisting the Earth is a doughnut. There was no preamble to this.

>>16813879
there was but you didn't notice it and just posted something that had little to do with the conversation you barged into. go away you lazy retard.

>>16813883
>posted something that had little to do with the conversation
I posted something having to do with the pic, namely that it in no way refutes the defeasible argument that if all your senses tell you that you're on a plane, you are probably on a plane.

>>16813886
and yet its quite clearly demonstrated that what you say need not be the case at all. what cant flat earthers into scale? its strange

>>16813916
>what you say need not be the case at all.
You seem to be deeply confused. Here's what I said:
>it in no way refutes the defeasible argument that if all your senses tell you that you're on a plane, you are probably on a plane.
You never made any attempt to show that this statement need not be the case. Try again?

>>16813922
it quite obvious that you are trolling now and its boring. next time dont jump into a conversation without reading it so that you know what you're actually responding to.

>>16813927
I'm not trolling. I'm just sticking to my position that the image you posted:
1. Doesn't refute the defeasible argument that if all your senses tell you that you're on a plane, you are probably on a plane
2. Doesn't constitute any evidence whatsoever that the Earth is round
It only establishes that it's not impossible for something to look flat yet actually be curved.

>>16813943
i didn't post it in regard to either of those points, only the one ive shown you from a post made a few days ago. and it does argue against your first point anyway, since its quite clearly shown that due to the scale of the sphere and observer that its very very possible to think you're on a flat plane when in fact its just that you cant see enough of it to perceive its a sphere.

>>16813951
I like how you explicitly make the fallacy I called out some 20 posts ago, using the pic as "evidence", all while trying to convince me my prescient criticism had nothing to do with your "thinking" ITT.

>>16813970
if you cant get your head around the very simple claim i was responding to by now, then theres no hope. lets call it quits.

>>16813972
You're either a broken bot or actually having a psychotic episode here. Which "simple claim" are referring to? This one?
>its very very possible to think you're on a flat plane when in fact its just that you cant see enough of it to perceive its a sphere.
If so, you need psychiatric treatment, because it's just a low-verbal-IQ variation of something I said in the very post you replied to.

Maybe this one?
>it does argue against your first point anyway
If so, you need urgent institutionalization, because you're hallucinating some "argument" that doesn't appear in any of your posts.

>>16813976
ffs. the only one i care about, because its the only one i was replying to was the claim i already pointed you to. then come along and start all this other shit and im not sure why. im not replying to you again because im almost 100% sure you're here to troll and shit the thread up.

>>16799359
No fakery, all real. deal with it.

>>16813857
You don't need a super-heavy lift rocket to go to the moon if you're willing to use a multi-launch architecture with smaller rockets.

File: china stage prop line.jpg (139 KB, 1441x1161)

139 KB JPG

You people are dumb for questioning the original moon landing. The Chinese moon landing though? I have questions.

File: Illustration.jpg (587 KB, 1152x734)

587 KB JPG

>>16817953

File: Yutu_rover.jpg (534 KB, 1152x734)

534 KB JPG

>>16818003
Close, but my guess is it's probably reflecting off the body after passing through the gap between it and the panel.

>>16818139
of course. its even showing shadows for the two hinge attachments. the things that some people think they notice always surprise me.

>>16818212
It doesn't make any sense when you think about the level of effort a fake would take.
All that work and care to supposedly make a 1 to 1 perfect recreation of the moon, making sure absolutely no footprints are made so they can get their sexy track mark pictures, but then some guy spray paints a line on the ground like a construction worker marking road work?
And no one noticed?
It's like if Apollo footage opened with a film clapper and some guy shouting "action!". Of course they would notice that while checking the footage they're about to try to fool the world with and redo it.

>>16818309
i know i know, its bizarre thinking. part of the desire they have to be the great detective seeing things no one else notices because they are so very super awake and openminded etc etc, coupled with towering arrogance to believe that no else noticed something so blindingly obvious.

they went to the moon. not sure why anyone thinks they didn't

>>16819992
>they went to the moon. not sure why anyone thinks they didn't
In the faked world they have to question the few things that really happend.

>>16820245
just wish they'd do it in a reasonable fashion but they dont

>>16819992
Because 60 years later we still can't even land rovers consistently on it, only 30% of the times we can. But sure a dozen astronauts went to the moon and back several times in the late 60s and early 70s with a 100% success rate and there is no evidence for it other than them saying they did and a bunch of photos experts all agree they were shot in a studio with spotlights

>>16820781
so because the same program hasnt been repeated you think the original one was faked?
>cant land rovers
they've had several rovers running around on mars for years anon. thats definitely a step up.
> a bunch of photos experts all agree they were shot in a studio with spotlights
you should take a closer look at the photos they were shown. then you see that those photos were not original prints at all, rather altered versions. the changed exposure, light levels etc deceived them. The makers of American Moon are deceivers.

Remember, question everything.

File: video.webm (2.06 MB, 640x360)

2.06 MB WEBM

>>16818309
It's obviously fake.

We live in a positive pressure medium. It doesn't take a genius to understand negative pressure of the assumed vacuum of space next to the air we breath with no barrier cannot be true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMejmM7Q9oc

We know space not to be true, so any claims about things that takes place in space are also not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOfcyYlQzZk

>>16820781
Rovers and unmanned missions are comparatively cheap and the only consequence of failure is maybe a stern talking to.
Once humans are involved, catastrophic failure means a national
tragedy. Manned missions have vastly more money, time, and oversight pumped into them because they're considered missions that MUSTN'T fail. Therefor it's far more likely on a per-mission basis that manned missions will be on average more successful than unmanned ones.

>>16821388
Vacuum is not negative pressure, it's simply absence.
The only thing that causes violent depressurization when a hole is punched in a spacecraft is the vessel's own air pressure pushing against the absence of a wall.
Around supermassive objects like planets, the pull of gravity itself creates a virtual wall. The air pressure of the planet's atmosphere cannot overcome the pull of its gravity, thus the gas is trapped around the planet the same as in a spacecraft with intact walls.

>>16799361
stop noticing. retards here really think a nation that was uncapable of putting a satellite in orbit before the soviets was capable of sending a crew to the moon. funnies shit is their excuses for not being able to replicate another moon landing
>old as fuck technology got lost bro
>no funding bro
>moon is boring bro, the new meta is sending stuff to another desolated shithole but this one is more le epic because its red and... has unusable water

>>16799361
>1960s-70s
>flies to the moon for the first time with budget of $200B+ just for Apollo
>2020s
>smaller budget split across many more programs
>no reason to send people to the moon anymore, probes can do everything for much cheaper

>>16821388
>what is [math]\nabla p = -\rho \mathbf{g}[/math]

>>16799359
>the footage doesn't look like my heckin' hollywood movierinos!
>I can't believe anyone thinks this looks real!

>>16821433
>writing them in green doesn't make them wrong, anon

File: 21752186_491402394565519_(...).jpg (41 KB, 640x434)

41 KB JPG

>>16821416
There is no such thing as pull of gravity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fW5Wz2PGlQ

>>16821439
Nonsense.

>>16821455
Not watching. Don't care. No one will ever be convinced by your schizo retard "theory".

>>16821455
Teachers use abstractions and simplifications to teach children concepts they aren't fully equipped to grasp, and then expand upon them later when the students have learned more about math.
You'll get there eventually, unless the state is failing/has failed to prepare you to face the real world.

>>16812837
There are no flat surfaces and no spherical surfaces. What is it you are referring to?

>>16804983
Glowies, every thread.

>>16802004
>why does it matter if evidence is destroyed
kek lul
Will you kill yourself when artemis doesn't launch?
I want your promise that you will stream your suicide when they don't get to the moon.

>>16821659
the lul is that you call everything fake already. what difference would some tables of tank pressure etc make to you? you already think that mission control was being fed fake data to fool them into thinking it was real, so why would you all of a sudden accept reams of raw telemetry data?

>>16821388
>It doesn't take a genius to understand negative pressure of the assumed vacuum of space next to the air we breath with no barrier cannot be true.
do you admit that it takes a lot of energy to raise physical objects higher above the ground? if so, then simply apply that concept to the trillions of tons of gas thats on the surface of the earth and you'll see why this silly point flat earthers always make is really really silly.

>>16821433
>a nation that was uncapable of putting a satellite in orbit before the soviets
you have no idea what you're talking about. the US definitely capable of launching a satellite just like the USSR were, only they had more political hurdles getting in the way. you'll notice that Ranger was launched less than 4 months after Sputnik, because the USSR beating them to the 1st place prize caused those political barriers to be dropped. Same thing with the first man into space - US were just a couple months after, because of extra safety concerns and stuff.

such small differences in time prove that the capabilities were really quite identical , and once the US gemini program gathered momentum they were always in the lead in terms of firsts.

>>16820652
>just wish they'd do it in a reasonable fashion but they dont
Can't be reasonable because the target audience isn't. It has to be bullshit as part of the psyop too.

>>16821683
>beating them to the 1st place prize
1st price was to 3rd Reich, next ones too because they made the constructors "an offer they cannot refuse".

>>16821773
>1st price was to 3rd Reich
they definitely won the 'first object into space' award, but not the one for 1st object into orbit.

>>16821780
>they definitely won the 'first object into space' award, but not the one for 1st object into orbit.
They did, just in the country that installed that gay Zelinsk. ähhmm AH to destroy Germany in a5 front war.

>>16821782
>They did,
never seen information on that.

File: 19247583_1358949534174887(...).jpg (90 KB, 960x853)

90 KB JPG

>>16821508
Teachers lie to children who lack critical thinking skills and believe anything. Had Newton or anyone else tried to teach gravity to adult men he would've been reject and laugh upon. To claim that fishermen, sailor and even naval engineers didn't knew basic physics is absurd.

>>16821679
Last time i checked, no energy is necessary for a helium balloon to raise above the ground? If you understand density and buoyancy and add gravity you will realize there is no way for earth to float instead of sinking towards the center of the solar system proposed by the ball earth model.

https://youtu.be/ZTueXOrPOBI?si=uzzANUdIPCTTtoUi&t=143
https://www.youtube.com/live/Q2TZ-_9lPZY?si=6lWFqOm4p7TvaYjE&t=1304

>>16806030
Nor the trajectories of the dust particles

>>16800935
>Or do you mean soil samples that don't have matching composition across countries?
It's almost as if they landed on different parts of the Moon... hmmm

>>16822018
>Last time i checked, no energy is necessary for a helium balloon to raise above the ground?
of course it is. what do you think it pushing it up? why do you think the gas inside the balloon is less dense than the gas outside of it?

>there is no way for earth to float instead of sinking towards the center of the solar system
please tell me you're trolling.

File: 62241066_307679530119536_(...).jpg (79 KB, 794x960)

79 KB JPG

>>16822065
>please tell me you're trolling.
Not an argument.

There earth atmosphere does not cover 1% of the distance between the ground we stand upon and the surface of the sun.

If space pushes everything down as Kaku said, it must push earth downwards the sun the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKwz0MEawI

>>16822125
>what is angular momentum?
why would the earth fall towards the sun if it keep moving around it at the same speed?

File: images.jpg (9 KB, 190x266)

9 KB JPG

>>16822127
Did you watched >>16809792 ?

>>16822180
no. have you ever tied a ball or something on a string and whirled it around? notice how when you keep the speed the same it stays in the same plane?

>>16821792
>never seen information on that.
You think you can read what really happens?
This site was somewhat smarter, all gone.

>>16822398
where did you get the information from? did your spirit guide tell you?

I think they should delete /pol/. Maybe it'll get all of these fuckwits off of the site

>>16804983
They happened during detente, Brezhnev and Nixon were best buddies and they might have had a deal where the USSR let the US ''win'' the space race with the fake moon landings in exchange for other things (they got a shitload of grain on credit by the US during that time too). Either way how fucking weak the case for the moon landings is when the only proof people always bring up is that the soviets would have said something rather than actual proof concerning the missions, you know like the moon rocks donated to museums in Europe that turned out to be just fossilized wood, why would they do that at all if they actually went to the moon and got actual moon rocks?

File: 43247_2024_1961_Fig5_HTML.png (817 KB, 1350x1627)

817 KB PNG

>>16823684
The petrified wood thing was one rock given to the Netherlands by a random American diplomat, and we don't know if he lied for geopolitical clout with their prime minister, or if the prime minister himself misremembered what it was supposed to be, or if the original was stolen.
Your use of plurals implies that it was more than a single example, but the lunar sample displays gifted to other countries officially by the US government have been tested to be moonrocks.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01961-z

if i was an elite who wants to keep the goyim in the dark so i can get away with corruption, i would make them believe space doesn’t exist and going to the moon is impossible than the other way around. if people demand effective space exploration let alone expansion, this requires resources being spent in a competent manner for a real goal, meaning less money and power for me. making goyim doubt everything so they say things like “yeah i heard space isn’t real anyways who knows” is better than them asking why we don’t have the money and politics to do real things. schizos are always friends of corrupt merchants and tinpot dictators.

File: 491_1014560938617467_4649(...).jpg (21 KB, 640x263)

21 KB JPG

>>16822213
>have you ever tied a ball or something on a string and whirled it around?
Yes. Can we do the same with no string by using gravity instead?

>>16823899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvuXNc_aSo

>>16824244
so how would the ball on the string manage to move towards where you're holding the string without it needing to slow down?

File: slide_1.jpg (151 KB, 1024x768)

151 KB JPG

>>16824283
Wait a minute. There is no string connecting sun to earth in the ball earth model.

Have you ever tied a ball with nothing but gravity and whirled around?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M73NXF_f_Q