The lamest fraud ever.
>>6243087It was real ..... in my mind
>>6243087>The lamest fraud everHave you been paying attention to what the US is doing now?
t>>6243157hats okay. non-believers will get left behind and when they realize they were wrong it'll be too late.
>>6243198Alright buddy that's just an air compressor and a projector. Non-belibers will still get a ticket just to go up and call it fake when they're in mars
>>6243157thats what happens to me 15 mins after my morning coffee
>>6243106watch American moon
It's not a lie to say humans landed on the moon.But they're lying about what they found.
>>6243087Who's filming that?
>>6243106It's much easier and cheaper to hire a hollywood studio and call everyone "nunjob" when you question it.Even with advanced AI and technology people still can't land on the moon but somehow 1960 people landed on it but forgot how to do it again.I wonder how people becomes this gullible.
>>6243347>19601969-19726 moon landings.You're stupid. No verification is needed.
>>6243087Wrong.
>>6243347ok but can someone explain to me how they made dust float and then fall after kicking it up
>>6243347You didn't address any points in the gif. Get a good telescope and see it for yourself. It's that easy.
>>6243783the videos are in slow motion
>>6243087You're pretty stupid aren't you? >it was shot in a studio>shows video of craft launching inside a studio with apparently no roof. >but there were wires tied to the roof making the astronauts look light>amateur astronomers tracked the apollo in space and photos were published in sky and telescope magazine - they were all lying, even the russian astronomers.you guys are just so incredibly stupid
>>6243347the problem with moon landing today is economical one, not technical.
>>6243092fpbp>>6244027>they were all lying, even the russian astronomers.well yes of course. surely you don't think masonry is limited to just a few "countries"?>>6244083haha. ahahahaha
>>6244102edit: can someone post the jeet "moon landing" vid? you know the one
>>6244102doesn't take much to make an idiot laugh, huh?
>>6243323It's called a video camera anon.
Moon landing denial is perhaps the most stunning example of Dunning-Kruger in action. Every single argument here has been btfo for at least half a century by now.
>>6243323Me, I was there that day, NASA forgot to pack a tripod
>>6243797so they slowly kicked dust and it went up
>>624308770 years ago man, let it go
>>6243347>my whole life is spent online so everything impressive before the internet is fakeimpressive how zogged you are
>>6243106ok i'll bite.>i got video proofthat doesn't necessarily prove man went on the moon>see the rocketyou cant see it land on the moon>brought back rockslike that rock that was petrified wood? like the guy who was jailed for having sex on moon dust? prove they came from the moon.>landing sited visible by telescopeyou would need a 10 meter (30 feet) wide telescope to resolve something the size of a feature of the landing on the moon such as a footprint. all of these images are from nasa owned alleged probes.>they placed a mirrorpeople have been bouncing lasers off the moon since before that mirror was placed. the equipment to test it requires an enormous telescope and powerful laser and detecting in the order of single photons returning ( a statistical error basically ). YOU absolutely cannot OBSERVE the reflection.>wouldn't russia have said somethingno they were killing themselves to compete and won every single milestone until usa gave them an excuse to stop.>why spend billions on the rocketwhy spend billions on the rocket just to land on the moon. it was entirely pointless other than to show superiority over ussr. so it didnt matter if it was real or not, the value was gained regardless. its not like they are mining the moon for minerals.>video mistakeseveryone makes mistakes, both nasa and people watching are capable of being mistaken.>its easier to...we will never know, because only one of these has happened and cant be compared to the other.>why do it againits 2026 please don't expect rational answer for government choices.
>>6244262too long did not read.So, there is man-made equipment (retroreflector) left on the moon. Got it.
>>6244275op claim was that man landing on the moon was a hoaxrussians landed a rover on the moon with a retroreflector long before american man first walked on the moontherefore any junk left on the moon, if you could prove it was there (you can't) doesn't prove a man landed on the moon to put it there.
>>6244284Post source of the first retroreflector and how many in total.
>>6244287There's 7 with the US being the first one, then Russia placed one (french made) in 1970 but was lost for 40 years until April 2010, American scientists used images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to pinpoint the rover's precise location.
sorry forgot links sourcehttps://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10818https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
and the russias retroreflector (french made) found in 2010https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36833658
>>6244284This is a decent argument except that YOU CAN LITERALLY SEE THE LANDING SITE WITH HUMAN FOOTPRINTS THROUGH A TELESCOPEI'd tell you to go buy one and look for yourself but we both know you can't afford that, fuckin looser
>>6244315nta but you can't spell "loser" correctly.therefore opinion dismissed, you esl rapejeet. go back to your own country..
>>6244327you're a fucking loooser tooLOOOOOOOOOOSER
>>6244327the looooser is mad
is disregarding an argument due to one extra letter not the most bitch made millennial shit ever?
Too much of the same schizo conspiracy ramblings here, post rockets or something
>>6244315>>6244262>you would need a 10 meter (30 feet) wide telescope to resolve something the size of a feature of the landing on the moon such as a footprint. all of these images are from nasa owned alleged probes.
>>6244346>footprint. allDidn't capitalize the A in all after the period opinion disregarded
I get why people believe in conspiracy theories like this, it still makes feel bad for them tho, must be hard to have such little control over your own life that you draw up scenarios in which everyone is lying to you for no reason
>>6244346sorry i got confused with something else, just checked and you need a 100 meter (300 feet) diameter telescope to see the 4 meter wide lunar lander on the moon?check out this conclusive proof that man walked on the moon: this photograph of the lunar lander stage taken by korean space probe flying overhead. utterly conclusive. oh well it wont let me upload look it up yourselfhttps://web.archive.org/web/20241224095300/https://www.kari.re.kr/kplo/danuri/multi/multiMediaView.do?idx=44
>>6244354it is true that every single person lies constantly for basically no reason at all. also everyone is retarded and useless.
>>6244362projection
>>6243087You are brown
>>6243347Is a nunjob when you get a blowjob from a nun? Or is it when a nun gives your a nursing handjob?
>>6244262>why spend billions on the rocket just to land on the moon. it was entirely pointless other than to show superiority over ussr.that doesn't answer the question. Why spend that much time, money, and effort on rockets if they are not going to be used to take humans off-Earth? America could do plenty of things to prove superiority, why focus on that in particular? >we will never know, because only one of these has happened and cant be compared to the otherhow do you know, after all, you only seem to care about what is right in front of you that you can pysically touch, taste, smell, and see. Even then, you probably think it's a hologram or something; it's like youre a newborn
>>6244424LANDING DENIERS CANNOT DENY THE DUST.There is no way this was done under water or in slow-motion
>>6244102You have a 62ft lathe table lying around?
>>6244360There are also retroreflectors
>>6244102>well yes of course. surely you don't think masonry is limited to just a few "countries"?stupidity confirmed
>>6244727>why spend moneywell the space program we all know (don't we?) started as thinly veiled threats between usa and ussr about ability to launch icbms. both sides saying 'look what we can do are you scared'?if you remember challenger explosion, you would know that nasa funding came not from the science or exploration or anything good government departments, it came from the evily named 'national recon office'. the design of the space shuttle was specifically to hold spy satellites in the cargo bay to hide them. arguably the whole shuttle program was a cover story for launching spy shit into orbit. the reason the astronauts in challenger died was because nro was about to pull funding. if it was just a jolly to the moon they wouldn't be worried about a little delay and those astronauts would still be alive. so clearly the part of the government interested in spying from space on russia had some interest in seeing the rockets go up. that is the answer to why the money was spent on rockets.>how do you knowwhat? there are two classic positions in these arguments, either its real or its faked. to suggest a third position where both are true seems even more extraordinary than either one on its own.
>>6244315>YOU CAN LITERALLY SEE THE LANDING SITE WITH HUMAN FOOTPRINTS THROUGH A TELESCOPENo you can’t. Our best telescopes on earth would resolve a football field on the moon as a single dot.
>>6243106You could reflect a laser off the surface of the moon before they say they put one there. Weird how it's always brought up as proof
>>6245146No you idiot.
>>6243087Get over it Chang. We wuz there!
>>6244730silly wabbit, they removed all the atmosphere and most of the gravity in the movie studio where Kubrick filmed all that shit, nice try though
Biggest issue I can't fathom is that moon samples were brought back, shared with labs across the entire world, and even the people who would have benefited the most from calling it bullshit agree they were legit.Even in the most conspiratorial setting, that shit becomes absolutely bonkers.
>>6245029but still, money can be spent to prove rocket superiority without ever sending humans to the moon. But billions were spent to do that as well
>>6243106Morons like you only understand reality after you get your skull split in half.
>>6245996if only you used those police (fake) instead of the scared french frogs for the french riots at the moment, idiot cuck
>>6243087but enough about your thread, OP
>>6243106The landing sites are NOT visible using a telescope
>>6246172Don't worry yourself about 300k plus km away, you struggle enough to find your micro penis, lmao lol
>>6246172Correct, but they are visible from photos taken from lunar orbiters.
>>6244083i always find it ammusing that the people that defend NASA have to contradict NASA in order to protect NASAsee vid herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbUtpmoYyiQ
