So what's the play for moon landing deniers now? They obviously have to claim this one is fake too, in order to stay consistent.
I guess the date and camera quality and launch date will be enough "evidence" for that?

>>42191766
https://youtu.be/-f_DPrSEOEo?si=H27YHOyu8u_RD78N

>>42191766
Thinking about it, this is the climax of humanity. The moon has always been looming over us every night for as long as we have been around, we have longed to reach it but it may as well have been a untouchable deity. When we touched it, we fulfilled the desires of countless humans throughout the ages, we breached the sky and left our very world to walk on a divine symbol
What else is there? All the other planets are just moon landings 2.0. I guess immortality or Godhood is more prestigious but theres pretty much no chance of achieving either. Its all downhill from here

File: earth-as-seen-from-artemi(...).png (106 KB, 640x359)

106 KB PNG

>>42191766
>nice fake photo

Does anyone have the meme with the fake quote from some NASA guy saying "With the invention of full HD television returning to the moon was going to be hard, but with 4K cameras it's now impossible"

>>42192278
Not every potential landing would be on a desolate cheese field.
This also omits the idea of a higher power or being visiting here as well.

>>42191936
I’m on the fence about the moon landing.
It could easily be proven, if they had anything to show for it.
The fact that they didn’t find anything up there that we can’t find on earth is sus.
Just ordinary rocks, with no unique properties, to prove it came from off planet.

They’re not even landing this time.
It’s just a fly by.

>>42194872
Anything can be possible and denied, it's a studio, the astronauts were underwater, etc.

>>42195169
It’s definitely not underwater.
Look at the dust kick up.
Does look like some funky wire work though.

File: IMG_20260402_221856_745.jpg (51 KB, 672x1280)

51 KB JPG

>>42191766
>>42191936

>>42194872
>The fact that they didn’t find anything up there that we can’t find on earth is sus
They did, there's lots of rock samples that countless independent geologists looked at and and confirmed that those rocks in fact could not have formed on earth.
If you point this out to moon landing deniers they'll either say that all the geologists (including ones from other countries) are in on it or point out how there is one single instance of a museum mixing up a moon rock with an earth rock because somehow that means all the others are fake too or something.
You can't win, really, they're too dead set wanting the moon landing to be fake and can't really be reasoned with, unfortunately.
>They’re not even landing this time.
I mean neither did Apollo for 10 missions.
Comparing Artemis to Apollo is very misleading too, because the latter was just meant to put some guys on the moon at all costs to collect samples for a day. While the former aims to establish a permanent or semi permanent orbital station and research base in the long term.
>>42195656
That's exactly my point. The fact that they're flying through them now proves what people have been telling moon landing deniers for years: that the VA belts aren't the magical death fields they would like them to be.
So because changing your mind is very difficult, deniers have to keep staying in denial and say that this one is fake aswell for whatever reason.

Its my favorite Stanley Kubrick film

>>42191766
>to
near*

>>42196470
Exactly this

File: VanAllenDeadlyRadiation.png (812 KB, 1921x1080)

812 KB PNG

>>42196337
Van Allen himself classified them as deadly

File: Screenshot_20260403_19521(...).png (368 KB, 1080x715)

368 KB PNG

>>42196337

>>42191936
>had to wait till AI was invented until they staged another moon landing
Very convenient, CIA!

>>42200622
>>42200631
Notice how he's talking about the inner zone? That's not where they flew through.
A lethal dose is about 400-500 rad, they went through a thinner area of the belt and it took them about an hour. If you do the math it results it results in them receiving less than 1 rad on the way through.
I'm sorry but moon landing denial is just fundamentally unserious, as soon as you just dig slightly below the surface. Literally the only thing you can do is cover your ears and call it fake, as shown by >>42200864

File: Apollo-11_flight-path.gif (128 KB, 655x479)

128 KB GIF

>>42201686
This what anyone n is talking about.

>>42201739
Exactly, they are clearly avoiding the most dense part and hence only got exposed to a fraction of the deadly 400-500 rad

>>42201686
>>42201747
if they actually went through they wouldn't need to be faking earth pics like >>42200303

>>42201772
And what makes you think it's fake?
If you can claim it's fake without evidence, that claim can be easily dismissed without evidence.