Did we actually really land on moon?

[mu_enrico]

Sure, really. You can download any of the apollo document set and examine them.

The life support system manual, the flight transcripts, the lander docs.

I think the recent advancement of Information Technology, electronics, and design, skewed my perspective about other areas. While the shape of vehicles and its computerization improved a lot, it still has wheels, shafts, and pretty much the same mechanics. It works! Well, NASA might have shabby rockets at that time, but it works!

C'mon guys, there is no Photoshop and After Effect at that time.

Maybe the only way to convince people is to go there again, but SJW wouldn't be happy if NASA gets enormous funding from taxpayer's money.

[1715060850]

1715060850

[1715060850]

1715060850

[1715060850]

1715060850

[CARrency]

With a lot of debates about this, I don't know what to believe. It's been years since I see this argument whether we really set foot on the Moon or not all I can say is I am so confused about what to believe in. I think I will just let the history goes like that, if that is how it is said in the book, then let it be. All I know is I am really confused and puzzled.

[notbatman]

"... their delusion is that strong."

If you believe they landed men on the Moon in a cardboard box wrapped in foil and streamed it live on TV in 1969, men who then proceeded to call president Dick "I'm not a crook" Nixon for a live interview, then I'm afraid your delusion is much, much, much stronger.

KYS faggot.

[Spendulus]

Sure, really. You can download any of the apollo document set and examine them.

The life support system manual, the flight transcripts, the lander docs.

I think the recent advancement of Information Technology, electronics, and design, skewed my perspective about other areas. While the shape of vehicles and its computerization improved a lot, it still has wheels, shafts, and pretty much the same mechanics. It works! Well, NASA might have shabby rockets at that time, but it works!

C'mon guys, there is no Photoshop and After Effect at that time.

Maybe the only way to convince people is to go there again, but SJW wouldn't be happy if NASA gets enormous funding from taxpayer's money.

There are craters on the Moon left by the Saturn booster crashing into it. We've imaged them; they look quite different that meteor impact craters. Check them out yourself.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100322-apollo13booster.html

[uneng]

I don't think so many people would participate on a farce like that. You say technology on that time didn't look sufficient to take men to the moon, but governments always have access to more advanced technology than civilians: there are technologies governments are using now that we, common citizens, will access only in 10 years or even more.

Men just don't go there too often because it's an expensive trip and there isn't any practical benefit on that. During 60's it had, besides it was an unexplored area, Usa had to show strength towards Urss.
All these speculations that men didn't land on moon come from communists that had to demoralize the americans deed and for that, they used their puppets, the hippies and similars.

[notbatman]

Look at you guys, your whole fucking world of illusions comes crashing down. The Eagle lander was a cardboard box retrofitted with foil, roofing paper, BMX brand bicycle parts, curtain rods and cellophane tape. Do you atheist retards actually believe Stanley Kubrick's finest cinematic work is for real, or are you just fucking liars who need a bullet?

The Moon is a light in the sky, you might as well try and land men on a street lamp. Think about that, how fucking dumb you are for believing men can land a vehicle full of clowns on a street lamp, have another drink bozo.

[Spendulus]

.....
All these speculations that men didn't land on moon come from communists that had to demoralize the americans deed and for that, they used their puppets, the hippies and similars.

Except of course for NOBATMAN.

[notbatman]

The Moon landing hoax is a communist (atheist) conspiracy. The Moon is not a physical object, prove me wrong!

[BADecker]

^^^ It's always so difficult determining if you haven't taken your meds today, or if you have taken too much.

[Spendulus]

The Moon landing hoax is a communist (atheist) conspiracy. The Moon is not a physical object, prove me wrong!

You are doing a superb job of that, I would certainly not want to interrupt.

[uneng]

Now I'm a bit confused.
What is considered conspiracy theory on this case, that men landed on moon or that men didn't land on moon?

[notbatman]

Now I'm a bit confused.
What is considered conspiracy theory on this case, that men landed on moon or that men didn't land on moon?

1. Have people believe the Moon is a giant heavy ball in the sky to support the false Copernican model of the universe.

2. Manufacture evidence of men landing on the Moon.

3. Profit.

Conspiracy theory is a term coined by the CIA to label anybody who is critical or might bring light to their clandestine and often illegal or immoral activities.

[Spendulus]

Now I'm a bit confused.
What is considered conspiracy theory on this case, that men landed on moon or that men didn't land on moon?

1. Have people believe the Moon is a giant heavy ball in the sky to support the false Copernican model of the universe.

2. Manufacture evidence of men landing on the Moon.

3. Profit.

Conspiracy theory is a term coin by the CIA to label anybody who is critical or might bring light to their clandestine and often illegal or immoral activities.

Aw come on!

You know as well as I that we live on a Flat Moon, and the big mirror in the sky just reflects it and that's why we see the Moon up there.

Enough of this nonsense about living on a Flat Earth. If we did then we'd see the Earth on that big sky mirror and we don't!

And that proves it! There is No Flat Earth!

[BADecker]

^^^ Yeah, but, but, but. What about the projectors?    

[notbatman]

@Spendulus,

   Fuck your strawman fallacy, that's proof you're a goof, a liar or both. The distances involved and the curved geometry of a giant concave mirror above us render your argument moot; you're not looking at a flat mirror 3' from your nose.

If you've got any scientific proof the Moon is a solid heavy ball that goes down below our feet every day, and that it reflects sunlight and pulls the ocean up you should post it. What about scientific proof of the Moon's size and distance?

If you want to claim the Moon is anything other than a light in the sky, well fucking prove it! Because the clown on TV, or in the public school or in the comic textbook says so and, because you feel the need to fit in is not scientific fucking proof.

[tiknack]

USSR used to tell that tale for decades, I'm not buying it.

[BADecker]

^^^ Combining trig with the balloon photos shows that there is a horizon with a space backdrop. The trig shows the distance to the moon along with its size. It isn't what you say. But, it's nice to know where you are... in those pictures.

[scopatumana]

Well, I guess so far as there hasn't been any solid evidence to debunk that claim, it still holds. My conviction is also that, if there were rockets that could go to the moon then it is possible they might have actually landed on the moon.

[notbatman]

The "photographs" NASA provides shows they landed a tinfoil wrapped cardboard box with a facade of tar paper, curtain rods, cellophane tape and BMX brand bicycle parts on a Los Vegas movie set.









@scopatumana, so you believe that men rode on top of rockets and went to the Moon?

[BADecker]

^^^ That's easy. They could have done this: To the stars by atom bomb: The incredible tale of the top secret Orion Project - https://newatlas.com/orion-project-atom-bomb-spaceship/49454/