now that the lunar dust has settled, do we have documentation that classifies exactly which parts of the moon footage are real, and which parts are faked?
>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
>>16799361energy 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
>>16799361That's the power of diversity.
>>16799361perhaps computing power isnt the most crucial factor. ever think of that?
>>16799359Lunar dust never settles, OP.Your thread is without hope.Let it die with Kubrik.
>>16799359All recordings of the moon landing were actual recordings shot on set at an air force base in front of a live studio audience.
>>16799708That would explain the laugh track
>>16799359They're all fake.
>>16799763>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9YHow did they fake the hammer and the feather?
>>16799359had the landing been faked, the soviets would have uncovered it and told the world
>>16799763whats 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.
>>16800375thats not a reason
>>16799777giant vacuum chamber
>>16800520What 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 offeredjust wait
>>16800559anon, 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/
>>16800592all 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?
>>16800555that wouldn't be very fake would it now?
>>16800619i 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
>>16800639i see now. it can be hard to pick up on that kind of thing sometimes because too many people actually think like your post.
>>16800520that sounds insanely expensive, and they'd need real spacesuits toocouldn't they just not do this specific demonstration and save the money and effort?
>>16799364that was when all vestiges of the US gold standard ended and the ratio of spending on useful to useless things started falling to 0
>>16800619You 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
>>16801105That 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-zThe Netherlands understandably wanted to make sure at least one of the gifts we gave them were real.
>>16799787They 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?
>>16801126Depends , 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.
>>16801177>flat eartherno problem for satellites
>>16800619And the original footage and the telemtry data right?>worked on by universitiesAccording to whom? Have you ever met these people or do you just believe the masons on TV?
>it's another midwit fake moon landing thread
>>16801242There is no telecom hardware outside the gas chamber.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS4jPjs6JPw
>>16801253>the original footageyou 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.>telemetrywhich 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!!!1of 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.
>>16801671>you can see all the original footage.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNAHcMMOHE8
>>16801820just 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 toooooniggers
>>16801832>niggershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeH7eAEnJQQ
>>16799359The 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.
>>16801915the shape of the earth is meaningless to anyone building those structures, especially the wall.
>>16801671>just a slightly higher resolution versionOdd 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 isScrap 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 easyYou 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 archiversSo they could land men on the moon but couldn't handle video tapes correctly?>a bit more resolutionYes, a higher resolution would add to believability.>you can find some of it in the mission reportsNot 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 forhttps://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.
>>16801973Any 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
