# Was the moon landing a hoax???



## laudern (Jul 3, 2016)

Do you believe that the Americans landed on the moon back in 1969? Or do you think it was an elaborate hoax played on the world by the USA government to flex their propaganda muscle? 




A scientific calculator has more advanced computing power than the Apollo 11. But yet in 2016 we still find leaving the atmosphere challenging when taking Humans out of the earth's atmosphere. Hummmm, doesn't quite add up.


----------



## Veho (Jul 3, 2016)

laudern said:


> A scientific calculator has more advanced computing power than the Apollo 11. But yet in 2016 we still find leaving the atmosphere challenging when taking Humans out of the earth's atmosphere. Hummmm, doesn't quite add up.


Because calculating power can't help with heavy lifting. 
Leaving the atmosphere is challenging due to the enormous fuel costs. It wouldn't be a problem at all if someone was willing to dump endless amounts of money into the project, like they were in the 60s when they had to beat the commies on all fronts at all cost.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 3, 2016)

Yes. It was the Illuminawty!!!!


----------



## Jao Chu (Jul 3, 2016)

I always LOL when people bring up the computer argument.

Why does everyone assume that anything that is labelled as a "computer" needs to be like windows 10 or OSX?

All the apollo guidance computer needed to do was calculate the angles between navigation stars to make sure the SPS engine was pointing in the right direction and light the engine at a precise time. This is all achievable with very very low computing power.

Hell, the angles between stars used for navigation can be calculated by humans with a sextant for Christ's sake.

Humans went to the moon, if you dont beleive it then you have a very poor understanding of physics.


----------



## QuarkTheAwesome (Jul 3, 2016)

Wasn't there an episode of Mythbusters where they shone lasers at a retro-reflector the Apollo guys left up there and got some laser back, thus proving that there's a retro-reflector on the moon?

Not that I'm saying Mythbusters is a reputable source, just saying that if a reputable source were to conduct the same test (I'm sure someone has) it'd be pretty definitive.


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 3, 2016)

Is GBAtemp now a site for conspiracy theories?


----------



## QuarkTheAwesome (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> Is GBAtemp now a site for conspiracy theories?


Have you _seen_ the Wii U section?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> Is GBAtemp now a site for conspiracy theories?


GBATemp as a site is probably a conspiracy. If GBA isn't real how can my eyes be real?


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 3, 2016)

I can already smell the move to the EoF


----------



## Dorimori (Jul 3, 2016)

Yeah. Also, there's a cancer cure for rich people (steve jobe stil here), 9/11 was a controlled explosion for oil, Walt Disney is still alive through cryogenics, and vaccines give you autism.

Real answer? No, it wasn't faked, because we had people witness the launch!


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Jul 3, 2016)

Conspiracy theorists think they have the audacity to dishonor such a monumental achievement, huh?  Well I'll be seeing them in Hell, then.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 3, 2016)

Snowdori said:


> Yeah. Also, there's a cancer cure for rich people (steve jobe stil here), 9/11 was a controlled explosion for oil, Walt Disney is still alive through cryogenics, and vaccines give you autism.
> 
> Real answer? No, it wasn't faked, because we had people witness the launch!



That doesn't prove anything. It just meant they launched a rocket which didn't necessarily go to the moon.
I think they did because I haven't seen any real solid evidence that can debunk it.
Even if they did fake it, it wouldn't affects me in anyway.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> I can already smell the move to the EoF


not likely if the mods were gonna do that veho (a mod who responded here) would have done so already 

on topic:  of course it was faked do you know how many "brilliant minds" blew up on the way out of the atmosphere . . . the only to stop it was to fake it


----------



## CosmoCortney (Jul 3, 2016)

I think it was real because of the rock samples they have brought to earth and the mirrors that were placed on the moon's surface during the Apollo missions are still used today to measure the distance between earth and moon


----------



## Engert (Jul 3, 2016)

The astronauts left retro reflectors on the moon where people today bounce a laser off of them to accurately measure the distance of the moon from earth.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2016)

Leaving the atmosphere doesn't require computing power, it requires time, money, and fuel, something they will more than willing to pump into a projects in the 60's. If you believe it requires just a computer to launch people into the space, you are dumb and don't understand physics. 
If you believe the moon landing was faked, then you are a special kind of stupid. Not only did they take thousands of high quality pictures, video, ect. they even left traceable pieces of evidence behind, such as the retro reflectors.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> If you believe the moon landing was faked, then you are a special kind of stupid. Not only did they take thousands of *high quality pictures,*


 lol


Crystal the Glaceon said:


> they even left traceable pieces of evidence behind, such as the retro reflectors.


wait so believing everything nasa says they can remotely put vehicles on mars but somehow a physical man was required to set up reflectors . . . yet im "a special kind of stupid" . . . some people believe anything there told


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 3, 2016)

The actual poll: do you have a sense of humor?  Gee I guess I'm in the minority


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> lol
> wait so believing everything nasa says they can remotely put vehicles on mars but somehow a physical man was required to set up reflectors on a rock much closer . . . yet im "a special kind of stupid" . . . some people believe anything there told


I don't believe everything I am told, I believe something when there is enough evidance to it. There are far less pieces of evidence suggesting it was faked compared to evidence showing it was real. And yes, high res photos, they aren't "High quality" to today's standards, but for 60's quality, they are the best you can get
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...otos-from-nasas-moon-landings-are-now-online/


----------



## DinohScene (Jul 3, 2016)

We staged the moonlanding, on Venus!


----------



## Farian (Jul 3, 2016)

Actually, a very large part of NASA's _high quality_ moon footage video tapes were "accidentally" taped over. Suspicious as this is, I don't think the moon landing was faked. There is some mystery surrounding it, though


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> There are far less pieces of evidence suggesting it was faked compared to evidence showing it was real.


thats because . . .


Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Leaving the atmosphere *faking something massive* doesn't require computing power, it requires time, money, and fuel, something they will more than willing to pump into a projects in the 60's.


 projects like lest say declaring the usa to be the most dominate country in the world by proving we are the most advanced . . . but i'll just leave it there because we all know no matter the project the government "you know the people that print money" has more money to spend so of course there is more evidence in there favor


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> thats because . . .
> projects like lest say declaring the usa to be the most dominate country in the world by proving we are the most advanced . . . but i'll just leave it there because we all know no matter the project the government "you know the people that print money" has more money to spend so of course there is more evidence in there favor


Can you present some actual evidence to your argument? Something that can prove it didn't happen?



Farian said:


> Actually, a very large part of NASA's _high quality_ moon footage video tapes were "accidentally" taped over. Suspicious as this is, I don't think the moon landing was faked. There is some mystery surrounding it, though


That's something that is interesting.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Can you present some actual evidence to your argument? Something that can prove it didn't happen?
> 
> 
> That's something that is interesting.


Let me guess his evidence : THERE'S EVIDENCE ALL AROUND US

That's what tinfoil people usually say.


Anyway



https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-si...t-of-the-idea-that-the-moon-landing-was-faked


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Something that can prove it didn't happen?


oh its just small details everywhere,  but one single thing that proves the whole thing is too much to hope for . . . i am sure no single peace of evidance will be enough and someone out there will try to "debunk" anything they personally have a hard time believing like . . .  photos from nasa being faked,  some would attempt debunk the whole "photos taken on earth look at the wind theory" based on the fact that the flag had an "L" shaped bar so the flag would be in an extended position for the photos that got me looking at photos and i myself noticed that the length of the "L" shaped bar varies from photo to photo not to mention several vanishing cross-hairs


gnmmarechal said:


> Let me guess his evidence : THERE'S EVIDENCE ALL AROUND US
> 
> That's what tinfoil people usually say.
> 
> ...


once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . .  true story . . . in other words cram it with the insults simply because i dont believe the same thing you do . . .  sheep


----------



## Flame (Jul 3, 2016)

its true... 

the world is flat too.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> oh its just small details everywhere,  but one single thing that proves the whole thing is too much to hope for . . . i am sure no single peace of evidance will be enough and someone out there will try to "debunk" anything they personally have a hard time believing like . . .  photos from nasa being faked,  some would attempt debunk the whole "photos taken on earth look at the wind theory" based on the fact that the flag had an "L" shaped bar so the flag would be in an extended position for the photos that got me looking at photos and i myself noticed that the length of the "L" shaped bar varies from photo to photo not to mention several vanishing cross-hairs
> once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . .  true story . . . in other words cram it with the insults simply because i dont believe the same thing you do . . .  sheep


It was flat because the technology wasn't there to prove otherwise. It currently is there to do so, and studying physics helps understanding too. It's rather... sorry, stupid, to believe otherwise. Read the "debunking" of the tinfoil theories. It makes sense that we did land on the moon. It honestly doesn't make any sense that we didn't. Call it whatever you want, but the tinfoil people often lack knowledge of basic physics.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Flame said:


> its true...
> 
> the world is flat too.


not to go off topic but great job @gnmmarechal you can learn a lot from flame he totally disagreed with me and made it funny without being insulting directly


----------



## Seriel (Jul 3, 2016)

Basically, uh, no it wasn't.
Unless you can prove otherwhise?


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> It was flat because the technology wasn't there to prove otherwise.


while it is usually easy to prove true things . . . proof is not truth . . . if you did not learn that from history class than your teacher failed


----------



## Queno138 (Jul 3, 2016)

I believe the moon landing happened, but there's one question boggling my mind:

Where are the stars in the photograph?

Surely "Earth" isn't bright enough to make a contrasting difference that makes the starts not visible, right?


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> not to go off topic but great job @gnmmarechal you can learn a lot from flame he totally disagreed with me and mad it funny without being insulting directly



No, I can't.


I'm providing sources (quora.com, you can learn quite a lot there), yet, you got stuck on "tinfoil". It's rather sad.


----------



## Seriel (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> proof is not truth . . . if you did not learn that from history class than your teacher failed


pls dont hate on my history teacher


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> while it is usually easy to prove true things . . . proof is not truth . . . if you did not learn that from history class than your teacher


Proof shows the truth.
Also, did your Physics teacher fail?


Queno138 said:


> I believe the moon landing happened, but there's one question boggling my mind:
> 
> Where are the stars in the photograph?
> 
> Surely "Earth" isn't bright enough to make a contrasting difference that makes the starts not visible, right?



Read the link from Quora.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-si...t-of-the-idea-that-the-moon-landing-was-faked
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wormdood said:


> oh its just small details everywhere,  but one single thing that proves the whole thing is too much to hope for . . . i am sure no single peace of evidance will be enough and someone out there will try to "debunk" anything they personally have a hard time believing like . . .  photos from nasa being faked,  some would attempt debunk the whole "photos taken on earth look at the wind theory" based on the fact that the flag had an "L" shaped bar so the flag would be in an extended position for the photos that got me looking at photos and i myself noticed that the length of the "L" shaped bar varies from photo to photo not to mention several vanishing cross-hairs
> once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . .  true story . . . in other words cram it with the insults simply because i dont believe the same thing you do . . .  sheep


Sheep? Lmao, that's so fucking tinfoil guy right here. Have fun. FYI, I'm not a sheep. I like Physics, and I do study Physics.  Physics... are you going to tell me physics are also a conspiracy? (never mind I asked, you probably are)


----------



## Queno138 (Jul 3, 2016)

I'm sorry what?


----------



## anhminh (Jul 3, 2016)

The question isn't if it real or not, the true question is how real can you think it is.

That is basically how reality work.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

More stuff.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-respond-to-people-who-believe-the-whole-moon-landing-was-fake


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> No, I can't.
> 
> 
> I'm providing sources (quora.com, you can learn quite a lot there), yet, you got stuck on "tinfoil". It's rather sad.


thats my point i would rather examine evidence as i find out about it myself instead of mirroring back what an article says that someone told me was definitive . . . i dont simply believe what im told like a sheep and reading your one definitive article wont change that . . . if that makes me tin foil man then,  shit do you have some Reynolds Wrap so i can make myself some undies to match the hat


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

This has always looked extremely suspicious to me.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> thats my point i would rather examine evidence as i find out about it myself instead of mirroring back what an article says that someone told me was definitive . . . i dont simply believe what im told like a sheep and reading your one definitive article wont change that . . . if that makes me tin foil man then,  shit do you have some Reynolds Wrap so i can make myself some undies to match the hat


Fuck. I mean, fuck. Read it, research about those topics. You clearly haven't.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mashers said:


> This has always looked extremely suspicious to me.



http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/
Do CTRL+F for "waving"


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/
> Do CTRL+F for "waving"


.gov domain...


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> .gov domain...


It doesn't matter. Physics isn't bound by the government.
"Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!"

Also, don't forget there is no air in the moon - the movement wouldn't be stopped by the air resistance.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I mean, we don't need any gov website. We need a book on physics, at most.

Angular momentum, lack of air, etc.


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> It doesn't matter. Physics isn't bound by the government.


Of course. But if there was genuine reason to believe that the USA had hoaxed its own moon landing, then I suspect that an American Government site explaining the physics would not be the most reliable source.



gnmmarechal said:


> "Not every waving flag needs a breeze -- at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples -- no breeze required!"
> 
> Also, don't forget there is no air in the moon - the movement wouldn't be stopped by the air resistance.


It was the way the corner suddenly flapped up that I really focused on. I can't see any reason why it would do that.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> research about those topics.


are you reading i never mentioned that i believed 90% of the   listed items  stated in that article so did i read its entirety . . .  of course not nor did i  research 90% of it as it does not pertain to my belief on the matter . . .


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Not only did they take thousands of high quality pictures...


I think my 3DS can take better quality pics


----------



## Engert (Jul 3, 2016)

Look, people are different and some people won't believe simple facts.
I think that the people who believe in these types of hoaxes also invented Religion back in the stone age. 
How do you explain that lightning from the sky which burned that tree? 
GOD !


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> nor did i  research 90% of it as it does not pertain to my belief on the matter . . .


Well, research means learning about both sides of the argument. If you only read evidence which confirms what you already believe then you're not researching anything.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Engert said:


> Look, people are different and some people won't believe simple facts.
> I think that the people who believe in these types of hoaxes also invented Religion back in the stone age.
> How do you explain that lightning from the sky which burned that tree?
> GOD !


Wrong. It was different. At the time, they believed that as they didn't know how to explain what happened.


Currently, the technology IS there, yet some don't believe...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wormdood said:


> are you reading i never mentioned that i believed 90% of the   listed items  stated in that article so did i read its entirety . . .  of course not nor did i  research 90% of it as it does not pertain to my belief on the matter . . .


Meaning, one who doesn't understand both sides of an argument has no place arguing about said matter. I've read the (bullshit) reasons for the "fake moon landing". I've read the information about the "real moon landing". I've read (and studied) Physics as well. Have you?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mashers said:


> Of course. But if there was genuine reason to believe that the USA had hoaxed its own moon landing, then I suspect that an American Government site explaining the physics would not be the most reliable source.
> 
> 
> It was the way the corner suddenly flapped up that I really focused on. I can't see any reason why it would do that.


It's a pendulum, and he's rotating in one way and the other. it doesn't behave the same as on Earth due to the lack of air resistance. But seriously, watching that, I really would love to go to the moon. It must feel pretty.... different.



Also, don't forget there are more countries than the USA. I find it...rather stupid... to consider it a world-wide conspiracy. Honestly.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> Well, research means learning about both sides of the argument. If you only read evidence which confirms what you already believe then you're not researching anything.


right . . .  so if my argument is about the pics of the flags i should read an article on surviving the radiation ? . . .  im saying that i read the parts that "debunk" what im saying . . . why read about debunking other aspects that the article and i already believe to be false


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> right . . .  so if my argument is about the pics of the flags i should read an article on surviving the radiation ? . . .  im saying that i read the parts that "debunk" what im saying . . . why read about debunking other aspects that the article and i already believe to be false


It doesn't matter what you believe. Facts =/= beliefs. When doing research, one must put his beliefs aside and research about both sides. EXTENSIVELY, until there are clear contradictions that can't be explained by, say, physics.


----------



## Engert (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe. Facts =/= beliefs. When doing research, one must put his beliefs aside and research about both sides. EXTENSIVELY, until there are clear contradictions that can't be explained by, say, physics.



Dude, not sure why you're trying to convince people who believe in hoaxes. Things like Physics which govern the rules of the Universe don't matter to these people and they invent God instead. Or invent a Hoax.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> It doesn't matter what you believe. Facts =/= beliefs.


now you toss my same point at me but in different words . . . 





wormdood said:


> once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . . true story


they (the tin foil people) were correct despite the "facts" that were in circulation at the time because even undiscovered truth is truth


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Engert said:


> Dude, not sure why you're trying to convince people who believe in hoaxes. Things like Physics which govern the rules of the Universe don't matter to these people and they invent God instead. Or invent a Hoax.


I'd rather not bring God into the equation. I can't say it exists nor I can say it doesn't exist.


Although, the biblic God probably can be debunked by pure logic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wormdood said:


> now you toss my same point at me but in different words . . . they were correct despite the "facts" that were in circulation at the time because even undiscovered truth is truth


The thing is - it's not a fucking conspiracy either way. People thought the Earth was flat - it was proven wrong. There was no "faking" involved. It was simply an assumption that was defeated by math and physics.


The "moon landing hoax" involves a conspiracy. And, can ALSO be defeated by math, logic and physics.


----------



## Abcdfv (Jul 3, 2016)

Snowdori said:


> Yeah. Also, there's a cancer cure for rich people (steve jobe stil here), 9/11 was a controlled explosion for oil, Walt Disney is still alive through cryogenics, and vaccines give you autism.
> 
> Real answer? No, it wasn't faked, because we had people witness the launch!


One of these conspiracies is not like the other!


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Engert said:


> I think that the people who believe in these types of hoaxes also invented Religion back in the stone age.
> How do you explain that lightning from the sky which burned that tree?
> GOD !





Engert said:


> Dude, not sure why you're trying to convince people who believe in hoaxes. Things like Physics which govern the rules of the Universe don't matter to these people and they invent God instead. Or invent a Hoax.


i think you meant to post here Do You Believe In God?


----------



## Deleted member 370283 (Jul 3, 2016)

The Mythbusters made an episode on the moon landing which includes the flag waving thing.
I suggest that you watch it, @mashers.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> i think you meant to post here Do You Believe In God?


Actually, this thread, and the other two, are rather similar in terms of content. It's not entirely off-topic. Though I wouldn't talk about God, as it is something that can't be confirmed or debunked by facts.


----------



## Engert (Jul 3, 2016)

I think that some of you missed my point but it's okay, i still love you guys.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> It was flat because the technology wasn't there to prove otherwise. It currently is there to do so, and studying physics helps understanding too. It's rather... sorry, stupid, to believe otherwise. Read the "debunking" of the tinfoil theories. It makes sense that we did land on the moon. It honestly doesn't make any sense that we didn't. Call it whatever you want, but the tinfoil people often lack knowledge of basic physics.


actually, it doesn't take much technologically to prove the earth is round.  Should be doable with a boat and a telescope.  Watch boat sail off into the distance through your telescope and said boat will eventually drop below the horizon; round earth proven.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Engert said:


> I think that some of you missed my point but it's okay, i still love you guys.


I didn't miss it, but I wouldn't use God as a comparison.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> actually, it doesn't take much technologically to prove the earth is round.  Should be doable with a boat and a telescope.  Watch boat sail off into the distance through your telescope and said boat will eventually drop below the horizon; round earth proven.


Math and Physics are also technologies. those weren't developed enough.
At any rate, should such a thing happen, they would obviously fall from the Earth /s



At least in Sid Meier's Civilization anyway


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 3, 2016)

The moon landing was faked along with 911 and the Holocaust. It's all part of a giant conspiracy to control our minds!


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> The moon landing was faked along with 911 and the Holocaust. It's all part of a giant conspiracy to control our minds!


GET YOUR TINFOIL BOIS


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> are rather similar in terms of content.


despite what you think you may have learned about me im no idiot i can clearly see similarity being blindly believing what you are told  but this is not the place for that
oh and im sure it would obviously surprise @Engert to know that i dont believe in god (in any traditional sense) and also don't find god relevant to human space travel


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> GET YOUR TINFOIL BOIS


You can just get normal tinfoil. I have special tinfoil that works much better. I'll sell it to you, but you need to sell it to your friends too so it'll protect them. People may try to tell you it's a pyramid scheme, but that's just their mind being controlled. They know it works.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> despite what you think you may have learned about me im no idiot i can clearly see similarity being blindly believing what you are told  but this is not the place for that
> oh and im sure it would obviously surprise @Engert to know that i dont believe in god (in any traditional sense) and also don't find god relevant to human space travel


He was simply making a comparison. One that I wouldn't make, but not entirely baseless.



vayanui8 said:


> You can just get normal tinfoil. I have special tinfoil that works much better. I'll sell it to you, but you need to sell it to your friends too so it'll protect them. People may try to tell you it's a pyramid scheme, but that's just their mind being controlled. They know it works.


I NEED IT


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> Math and Physics are also technologies. those weren't developed enough.


You'd only need math if you wanted to actually calculate the Earth's size.  The fact that the ship goes below the horizon is alone proof of the earth's roundness, however.



mashers said:


> It was the way the corner suddenly flapped up that I really focused on. I can't see any reason why it would do that.


It is eerie, isn't it?  Almost... unearthly motion.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> It is eerie, isn't it?  Almost... unearthly motion.


good one. lmao


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 3, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> I think my 3DS can take better quality pics



https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

This is @ 2048x2048, but the original resolution you can download there is 4096x4096. There are over 8400 photos.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Engert said:


> I think that some of you missed my point but it's okay, i still love you guys.


no no i got it 





Engert said:


> Things like Physics which govern the rules of the Universe


but psychics (as we know it/them) cant even properly explain all the psychical possibility on this planet like upward flowing rivers or something as simple as the flight of the bumble bee in fact for physics to "govern" anything sounds more like an entity than a rule/law but i digress . . . the point is you made your point but its simply not valid to say "ha ha you probably believe in god too . . . _never landed on the moon_ ha fool"


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> no no i got it but psychics (as we know it/them) cant even properly explain all the psychical possibility on this planet like upward flowing rivers or something as simple as the flight of the bumble bee in fact for physics to "govern" anything sounds more like an entity than a rule/law but i digress . . . the point is you made your point but its simply not valid to say "ha ha you probably believe in god too . . . _never landed on the moon_ ha fool"


Uh, Physics, by definition, govern the universe. Physics is not an entity, but the set of rules by which the Universe abides.

Also, there are no upward-flowing rivers. Prove me wrong here.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-rivers-that-flow-uphill


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> no no i got it but psychics (as we know it/them) cant even properly explain all the psychical possibility on this planet like upward flowing rivers







(also, it's 'physics'.  psychics are mind-readers)


> or something as simple as the flight of the bumble bee


http://www.todayifoundout.com/index...-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> (also, it's 'physics'.  psychics are mind-readers)
> 
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index...-flight-does-not-violate-the-laws-of-physics/


----------



## cots (Jul 3, 2016)

I used to watch space missions being launched. I can tell you they are not fake.


----------



## Red9419 (Jul 3, 2016)

What's up with all this space and moon talk lately. I could cares less if it was staged or not.


----------



## Sliter (Jul 3, 2016)

I think the first movies where a Hoax by some details even mythbusters don't touched hahah
But I think it is possible and they went there latter on but why no more videos or photos? like HD now? come on nasa ! xD

These details are the communication that for the videos I saw looked very on the time, o lag, no delay ... stuff we nowadays have even on a very advanced telephone and internet structure than what they had in 69? They talked likely they where side by side with walkietalkies, not outside the planet :v 
Not saying it's was impossible to communicate, but do on that way just don't look real ...


----------



## orcid (Jul 3, 2016)

Sliter said:


> I think the first movies where a Hoax by some details even mythbusters don't touched hahah
> But I think it is possible and they went there latter on but why no more videos or photos? like HD now? come on nasa ! xD
> 
> These details are the communication that for the videos I saw looked very on the time, o lag, no delay ... stuff we nowadays have even on a very advanced telephone and internet structure than what they had in 69? They talked likely they where side by side with walkietalkies, not outside the planet :v
> Not saying it's was impossible to communicate, but do on that way just don't look real ...


The radio signal between walkie talkies travels with the speed of light. So there is no big difference between standing side by side or speaking to someone on the moon. A radio message needs about one second to the moon.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 3, 2016)

Queno138 said:


> I believe the moon landing happened, but there's one question boggling my mind:
> 
> Where are the stars in the photograph?
> 
> Surely "Earth" isn't bright enough to make a contrasting difference that makes the starts not visible, right?


You're on crack. Ever take a pic of the full moon from earth? Show me how many stars you get in the pic. Do you honestly think the Earth gives off LESS light than the moon? Bwahahahaha! You can believe the rover on Mars because it's a machine, right? Tell me how much of the moon you could see when the rover snapped a pic of the Earth and sent it...



gnmmarechal said:


> I'd rather not bring God into the equation. I can't say it exists nor I can say it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Although, the biblic God probably can be debunked by pure logic.
> ...


You lost me. What was debunked? The "conspiracy" or the fact that we actually landed on the moon? The FACTS are there and only idiots don't understand them.

Yes. Anyone who thinks it was a hoax is an idiot. Have a nice life.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

urherenow said:


> You're on crack. Ever take a pic of the full moon from earth? Show me how many stars you get in the pic.
> 
> 
> You lost me. What was debunked? The "conspiracy" or the fact that we actually landed on the moon? The FACTS are there and only idiots don't understand them.
> ...


Well, nothing was debunked, but I can safely assume that, by examining the flawed logic of the biblic God, one can assume said biblic God does not exist.
It was rather... off-topic.

At any rate, my wording wasn't the best. It's not "The "moon landing hoax" involves a conspiracy. And, can ALSO be defeated by math, logic and physics." but rather "The "moon landing hoax" would involve a conspiracy (if it made any sense). And, can ALSO be defeated by math, logic and physics."


----------



## urherenow (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> Well, nothing was debunked, but I can safely assume that, by examining the flawed logic of the biblic God, one can assume said biblic God does not exist.
> It was rather... off-topic.
> 
> At any rate, my wording wasn't the best. It's not "The "moon landing hoax" involves a conspiracy. And, can ALSO be defeated by math, logic and physics." but rather "The "moon landing hoax" would involve a conspiracy (if it made any sense). And, can ALSO be defeated by math, logic and physics."


You still lost me on what is being defeated. Math, logic, and physics are what prove that we DID land on the moon.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

urherenow said:


> You still lost me on what is being defeated. Math, logic, and physics are what prove that we DID land on the moon.


thats his point as well im the one you wanna talk shit to


----------



## rasputin (Jul 3, 2016)

5 year olds make better models for their school plays.

if you think that's actually on the moon, you are just plain thick


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

urherenow said:


> You still lost me on what is being defeated. Math, logic, and physics are what prove that we DID land on the moon.


Huh, that IS my point m8.


----------



## Queno138 (Jul 3, 2016)

urherenow said:


> You're on crack. Ever take a pic of the full moon from earth? Show me how many stars you get in the pic. Do you honestly think the Earth gives off LESS light than the moon? Bwahahahaha! You can believe the rover on Mars because it's a machine, right? Tell me how much of the moon you could see when the rover snapped a pic of the Earth and sent it...
> 
> 
> You lost me. What was debunked? The "conspiracy" or the fact that we actually landed on the moon? The FACTS are there and only idiots don't understand them.
> ...




No no, I don't believe it's an hoax.

I was asking a legitimate question; I wasn't being sarcastic.

Just pointing out I was disturbed that the whole sky appeared blank, not even a few dots.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2016)

wormdood said:


> oh its just small details everywhere,  but one single thing that proves the whole thing is too much to hope for . . . i am sure no single peace of evidance will be enough and someone out there will try to "debunk" anything they personally have a hard time believing like . . .  photos from nasa being faked,  some would attempt debunk the whole "photos taken on earth look at the wind theory" based on the fact that the flag had an "L" shaped bar so the flag would be in an extended position for the photos that got me looking at photos and i myself noticed that the length of the "L" shaped bar varies from photo to photo not to mention several vanishing cross-hairs
> once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . .  true story . . . in other words cram it with the insults simply because i dont believe the same thing you do . . .  sheep


I asked for proof, not speculation. I can bring pictures, videos, documents, eye witnesses, ect. to prove that it happened and you bring me speculation. Why not bring up the Stanley Kubrick argument too if you are going to throw wild speculation at me.



WiiUBricker said:


> I think my 3DS can take better quality pics


Yeah, they still look like shit took a dump by today's standards, but by 60's standards they amazing. I am using the word "high quality" in time period appropriate terms, not current day terms. For 60's, they are still really well detailed and extremely clear. They don't look like your normal everyday pictures taken in the 60's, you can actually see a lot detail in them.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Jul 3, 2016)

look REEEEEEAL CLOSE. When you see it, you will know... ALIENS CONFIRMED WE GONNA DIE WHY DID THIS PICTURE HAVE TO HAPPEN KILL THE 60S MY LIFE IS RUINED ITS A LIE DAMNIT DAMNIT DAMNIT NEXT THING U KNOW ILLUMINATI CONFURM! But wait *plays illuminati music* look at the american flag symbol on the astronaut's back... it is a rectangle, a rectangle is almost a triangle......... HOLY HELL ILLUMINATI NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KILL MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 3, 2016)

rasputin said:


> 5 year olds make better models for their school plays.
> 
> if you think that's actually on the moon, you are just plain thick




Only the lower half of it is on the moon. But there are 6 of them there. (I think ... 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, right?)


----------



## rasputin (Jul 3, 2016)

Hanafuda said:


> Only the lower half of it is on the moon. But there are 6 of them there. (I think ... 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, right?)



LOL you think the top half of that flew back to earth. Let's hope the sticky plaster didn't fall off.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 3, 2016)

rasputin said:


> LOL you think the top half of that flew back to earth. Let's hope the sticky plaster didn't fall off.


The top half went back to the shuttle that remained in orbit and the shuttle flew back to earth.  What do you think would happen, friction from the non-existent air on the moon would make it fall apart when it blasted off?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 3, 2016)

Red9419 said:


> What's up with all this space and moon talk lately. I could cares less if it was staged or not.


Because people need to feel superior to others. They need to have a argument about "muh moon landing was staged physics is a lie!!!11" to feel good about themselves.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> Huh, that IS my point m8.



Oh, ok. 



Queno138 said:


> No no, I don't believe it's an hoax.
> 
> I was asking a legitimate question; I wasn't being sarcastic.
> 
> Just pointing out I was disturbed that the whole sky appeared blank, not even a few dots.



Short answer, it's a matter of exposure. If the shutter was held open long enough to show starlight, the surrounding light would still overpower it, and you'd basically see nothing but a bright blur in the pic. I've done plenty of experimenting with aperture and exposure myself to get good moon shots . Check it out... no stars can be seen. I must be a hell of an artist (actually, I have trouble drawing a stick man) to make such a beautiful fake moon!


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

urherenow said:


> Oh, ok.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Y U LYIN THE MOON DOESNT EXIST EVERYBODY KNOW TAT IS THE DEATH STAR


----------



## Jayro (Jul 3, 2016)

It was absolutely fabricated. It was filmed in the Nevada desert and the footage slowed down, to simulate less gravity. Also, none of the photographs have any stars, and if the sun is the only light source in space, why are there shodows pointing in many different directions? Because they were stage lights.

Conclusion: it was faked.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Jayro said:


> It was absolutely fabricated. It was filmed in the Nevada desert and the footage slowed down, to simulate less gravity. Also, none of the photographs have any stars, and if the sun is the only light source in space, why are there shodows pointing in many different directions? Because they were stage lights.
> 
> Conclusion: it was faked.


They do have stars m8. Exposure. Seriously.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Jul 3, 2016)

This thread is almost as cringy as the gatehate one.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 3, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I asked for proof, not speculation. I can bring pictures, videos, documents, eye witnesses, ect. to prove that it happened and you bring me speculation. Why not bring up the Stanley Kubrick argument too if you are going to throw wild speculation at me.


 LOL what part of your proof is not speculation as well are you telling me you were there to witness The Taking of these photos and videos and can verify yourself that they are true are you telling me that you personally interviewed all of these eyewitnesses and can verify that their story is true no you simply speculate based on what you read as everyone else does.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 4, 2016)

waiting for the 9/11 conspiracy thread next


----------



## urherenow (Jul 4, 2016)

Jayro said:


> It was absolutely fabricated. It was filmed in the Nevada desert and the footage slowed down, to simulate less gravity. Also, none of the photographs have any stars, and if the sun is the only light source in space, why are there shodows pointing in many different directions? Because they were stage lights.
> 
> Conclusion: it was faked.


bwahahaha! Seriously? It was explained as simply as could be just a couple of posts above yours. Sun is the only light source? Tell me then... how exactly are you able to see Mars, Venus, and Saturn easily with the naked eye? Or Earth from Mars (54.6 million kilometers away...)?



wormdood said:


> LOL what part of your proof is not speculation as well are you telling me you were there to witness The Taking of these photos and videos and can verify yourself that they are true are you telling me that you personally interviewed all of these eyewitnesses and can verify that their story is true no you simply speculate based on what you read as everyone else does.



I personally spoke to Buzz Aldrin in 1984. My father worked at this place: http://www.spacecamp.com/ for a bit. Buzz was there giving a talk and had some one-on-ones. He was there (on the moon). Actually. Now what?

Morons.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 4, 2016)

urherenow said:


> I personally spoke to Buzz Aldrin in 1984. My father worked at this place: http://www.spacecamp.com/ for a bit. He was there. Actually. Now what?
> 
> Morons.


you want a medal or a chest to pin it to . . .  you spoke to one person (your dad the guy who told you all about santa claws when you were a kid as well ) and  even if he saw a rocket go up  thats all he saw . . . unless you are saying he was on the moon and witnessed the taking of the photo/video


----------



## TechAndrew (Jul 4, 2016)

There's lots of evidence suggesting that the moon landing was a hoax.
However, it would've costed a ton more to fake the moon landing, rather than actually doing it.
Therefore, I conclude that the moon landing is real.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> LOL what part of your proof is not speculation as well are you telling me you were there to witness The Taking of these photos and videos and can verify yourself that they are true are you telling me that you personally interviewed all of these eyewitnesses and can verify that their story is true no you simply speculate based on what you read as everyone else does.


So what you are getting at, is that you lack proof to back up your claims. You can ignore thousands of pictures, several videos, documents, etc. based purely on what? That you don't believe it happened.
Anyone who ignores mountains of evidence are either delusional or stupid. You want to believe there is some grand conspiracy because it gives some shallow argument for you, but you lack evidence to back it up. If you can't even present one solid piece of evidence, then I am going to assume you are either trolling or just plain delusional.


----------



## Engert (Jul 4, 2016)

One thing I like about the Moon by the way, is that it has no immigrants and things stay the same for millions of years. I wonder what's gonna happen in 100-200 years from now when Moon tourism and human settlers will be a common thing.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 4, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> So what you are getting at, is that you lack proof to back up your claims. You can ignore thousands of pictures, several videos, documents, etc. based purely on what? That you don't believe it happened.
> Anyone who ignores mountains of evidence are either delusional or stupid. You want to believe there is some grand conspiracy because it gives some shallow argument for you, but you lack evidence to back it up. If you can't even present one solid piece of evidence, then I am going to assume you are either trolling or just plain delusional.


nice ignore everything i said and focus on your previous point im sure that will make what i said less true if you ignore that i say it.   what im getting at is your proof is as weak as any proof i can provide . . . so where is your proof the fact that a government agency gave you pics of there own supposed "accomplishment" again you cannot confirm the validity of the photos any more than i could


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> nice ignore everything i said and focus on your previous point im sure that will make what i said less true if you ignore that i say it what im getting at is your proof is as weak as any proof i can provide . . . so where is your proof the fact that a government agency gave you pics of there own supposed "accomplishment" again you cannot confirm the validity of the photos any more than i could


You have shown, nothing. You have only brought up speculation. There are literally thousands of pictures, documents, ect. If you had any validity to your claims, you could easily back up your statements.
The issue isn't that I refuse to believe you, it's that you need proof. I've seen enough evidence to show that it did happen and enough to show it was fake. Considering most of the evidence showing it as "fake," have often linked back to stupid things like movies and music. But nothing showing solid credible sources.


----------



## darkangel5000 (Jul 4, 2016)

"Was the 1969 moon landing faked?"
Dunno, may be, may not be. Each side has its (perfectly reasonable to borderline insane) arguments.
But due to the fact that the cold war was THE political thing back then, I'd rather go with yes. Yet I wouldn't deny that we've ever been to the moon. Meh.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 4, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> You have shown, nothing. You have only brought up speculation. There are literally thousands of pictures, documents, ect. If you had any validity to your claims, you could easily back up your statements.
> The issue isn't that I refuse to believe you, it's that you need proof. I've seen enough evidence to show that it did happen and enough to show it was fake. Considering most of the evidence showing it as "fake," have often linked back to stupid things like movies and music. But nothing showing solid credible sources.


dodging the point you have shown no proof either and furthermore any proof you provide you cant validate . . . you are in the same boat as me . . . keep on pretending you and your beliefs are above mine . . . or you prove it . . . oh you cant just like me . . . same boat


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> dodging the point you have shown no proof either and furthermore any proof you provide you cant validate . . . you are in the same boat as me . . . keep on pretending you and your beliefs are above mine . . . or you prove it . . . oh you cant just like me . . . same boat


----------



## laudern (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> dodging the point you have shown no proof either and furthermore any proof you provide you cant validate . . . you are in the same boat as me . . . keep on pretending you and your beliefs are above mine . . . or you prove it . . . oh you cant just like me . . . same boat



But surely his argument has more validity when he throws insults at you. Making a statement then calling you a derogatory name surely makes his claim more valid???? physics, physics, physics. You don't understand physics!! Blah blah blah. Let's not even pretend that using simple trick photography that physics can be easily simulated. Idiot.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2016)

laudern said:


> But surely his argument has more validity when he throws insults at you. Making a statement then calling you a derogatory name surely makes his claim more valid???? physics, physics, physics. You don't understand physics!! Blah blah blah. Let's not even pretend that using simple trick photography that physics can be easily simulated. Idiot.


Actually I am a girl.
Still, like I said before. I just need to see something solid to prove their point. I've seen enough to come to my conclusion that it happened. But I am more than willing to reconsider, if I see something solid.


----------



## laudern (Jul 4, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Actually I am a girl.
> Still, like I said before. I just need to see something solid to prove their point. I've seen enough to come to my conclusion that it happened. But I am more than willing to reconsider, if I see something solid.



So you are willing to reconsider your own beliefs but yet do not understand how to have a respectful conversation with someone who has opinions that differ from your own. Show me evidence where you don't act in an immature way during a debate then maybe you can join the adults table of discussion.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2016)

laudern said:


> So you are willing to reconsider your own beliefs but yet do not understand how to have a respectful conversation with someone who has opinions that differ from your own. Show me evidence where you don't act in an immature way during a debate then maybe you can join the adults table of discussion.


My communication skills are not required for validation nor disqualify me from debating. If your argument is simply to belittle me, then that is not going to work. Regardless of how I worded my statements that I used in this conversation, it doesn't make a difference. I still haven't seen anything that proves it didn't happen.


----------



## urherenow (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> you want a medal or a chest to pin it to . . .  you spoke to one person (your dad the guy who told you all about santa claws when you were a kid as well ) and  even if he saw a rocket go up  thats all he saw . . . unless you are saying he was on the moon and witnessed the taking of the photo/video


I spoke to Buzz Aldrin (who WAS THERE. And witnessed the pictures being taken. And is IN the pictures), you idiot. You can't read either? Go home and play with your Barbie dolls now.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 4, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> My communication skills are not required for validation nor disqualify me from debating.


so your ability to communicate has no barring on your ability to debate . . . lol the only reason your opinion came to be a debate is because of your audacity


Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Leaving the atmosphere doesn't require computing power, it requires time, money, and fuel, something they will more than willing to pump into a projects in the 60's. If you believe it requires just a computer to launch people into the space, you are dumb and don't understand physics.
> *If you believe the moon landing was faked, then you are a special kind of stupid*. Not only did they take thousands of high quality pictures, video, ect. they even left traceable pieces of evidence behind, such as the retro reflectors.


when you insult someone in attempt to make a point you instantly loose credibility as you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of what you call facts . . . like this guy 


urherenow said:


> I spoke to Buzz Aldrin (who WAS THERE. And witnessed the pictures being taken. And is IN the pictures), you idiot. You can't read either? Go home and play with your Barbie dolls now.





urherenow said:


> bwahahaha! Seriously? It was explained as simply as could be just a couple of posts above yours. Sun is the only light source? Tell me then... how exactly are you able to see Mars, Venus, and Saturn easily with the naked eye? Or Earth from Mars (54.6 million kilometers away...)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i read and reread your posts and noticed you edited them later on . . .  i spoke to what you originally said so i guess i am an idiot because you dont know how to complete your thoughts the first time around


----------



## Katsumi San (Jul 4, 2016)

USA government and his many hidden truths


----------



## urherenow (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> i read and reread your posts and noticed you edited them later on . . .  i spoke to what you originally said so i guess i am an idiot because you dont know how to complete your thoughts the first time around


The only edit was to add "(on the moon)". Clarification for people such as yourself. Obviously it didn't work.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> so your ability to communicate has no barring on your ability to debate . . . lol the only reason your opinion came to be a debate is because of your audacity
> when you insult someone in attempt to make a point you instantly loose credibility as you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of what you call facts . . . like this guy
> 
> i read and reread your posts and noticed you edited them later on . . .  i spoke to what you originally said so i guess i am an idiot because you dont know how to complete your thoughts the first time around


This isn't a debate on my community skills. If your entire point is to break down my posts, then what have you proved? That I suck at communicating with people.
Let me actually break down your post



wormdood said:


> oh its just small details everywhere,  but one single thing that proves the whole thing is too much to hope for . . . i am sure no single peace of evidance will be enough and someone out there will try to "debunk" anything they personally have a hard time believing like . . .  photos from nasa being faked,  some would attempt debunk the whole "photos taken on earth look at the wind theory" based on the fact that the flag had an "L" shaped bar so the flag would be in an extended position for the photos that got me looking at photos and i myself noticed that the length of the "L" shaped bar varies from photo to photo not to mention several vanishing cross-hairs
> once apon a time the earth was flat and anyone who believed otherwise was a "tin foil person" . . .  true story . . . in other words cram it with the insults simply because i dont believe the same thing you do . . .  sheep


First, you didn't even state anything beyond a ramble.
You bring up the L shaped flag poll. Looking through them at different angles, it does appear a bit off. But it's hard to see where that proves anything. If you are going to fake something that, you won't just randomly swap out the poll between shots, hell even if it was taken at different periods of time, they wouldn't do something that obvious. The changing lengths can easily be attributed to the different angles that the pictures were taken.
Cross-hairs, because cameras? I do see how having cross-hairs proves anything? It proves they used different cameras or settings?
Actually, the flat earth belief was very short lived. I mean, it happened, but was extremely short lived.
I can admit, I am not the best person out there. Regardless, if I could see one thing, like a picture from the set, I would be happy. If this were truly a faked event, someone out there is bound to have something to prove it.
Sorry if I was being a bitch. Sometimes I just do that, why? Because reasons.
I just want to mention that I have no personal gripes with any in this thread. I just have really horrible communication skills. There's a reason I rarely venture outside of the Hacking sections and EOF.


----------



## wormdood (Jul 4, 2016)

urherenow said:


> The only edit was to add "(on the moon)". Clarification for people such as yourself. Obviously it didn't work.


you also edited post#111 was that to add the phrase on the moon as well . . . complete your thought the first time and there will be no confusion end of storyhttps://gbatemp.net/threads/was-the-moon-landing-a-hoax.433093/reply?quote=6501323


----------



## urherenow (Jul 4, 2016)

wormdood said:


> you also edited post#111 was that to add the phrase on the moon as well . . . complete your thought the first time and there will be no confusion end of story


"I personally spoke to Buzz Aldrin in 1984" was in the original post. The very thing you were confused about.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 7, 2016)

It was not faked.

To think otherwise is objectively moronic.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 8, 2016)

Alright, who were the 14 idiots who voted yes?


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 8, 2016)

It probably was faked, but nothing is compelling enough to convince me one way or the other after looking into it on and off for years.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 8, 2016)

Relevant

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stm




urherenow said:


> I've done plenty of experimenting with aperture and exposure myself to get good moon shots .


Did you ever see

Skip to 4:50 if you only want moon stuff, the rest is good though.


----------



## duyluan (Jul 8, 2016)

The only thing confuse my is why there's a ziplock bag in the background?!


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 8, 2016)

I haven't read through this thread, but has anyone pointed out the massive amount of radiation the sun produces and what that would do outside the earth's magnetic field to the 16mm filmed used during the landing, let alone the people protected by no more then a sheet of tinfoil?


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 8, 2016)

Here's a video where nasa talks about a craft designed to explore and collect data on the van allen belt (the magnetic field around the planet that collects radiation and dangerous particles from the sun). The craft is heavily shielded but will be unmanned on its first mission because they don't know how the craft will hold up. They need to collect data and test the vessel *before* sending *any* human beings through the belt. The van allen belt reaches 14,000km from earth at its widest point. The moon if far beyond that at 384,400km from earth.



So again, how did a few men in a tinfoil box survive radiation powerful enough to vaporize the surface of comets and kill every living thing on this planet if we didn't have this magnetic field?


----------



## rasputin (Jul 9, 2016)

Dupiter


----------



## Captain_N (Jul 9, 2016)

Modern space probes have been sent to the moon by other countries and have photographed the landing sites and also the moon rover. There is also a mirror left by one of the Apollo missions that is used to resume the distance the moon is receding from the earth. Google it and you'll see


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 9, 2016)

rasputin said:


> Dupiter



How can you say that Jupiter is fake?! You can take a telescope and look at it right now! I have seen it for myself!


----------



## rasputin (Jul 9, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> How can you say that Jupiter is fake?! You can take a telescope and look at it right now! I have seen it for myself!



did you even watch the video? please point out where I've said Jupiter is fake


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Jul 9, 2016)

"I don't believe in the Moon, I think it's just the back of the Sun" [cit] xD


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 9, 2016)

rasputin said:


> did you even watch the video? please point out where I've said Jupiter is fake


Doesn't matter. That entire video is still complete bullshit. It's using quotes from a stupid book as proof ffs.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2016)

Is this REALLY a fucking argument? Are people really this needing to feel superior? 

I also killed JFK guys. Please worship me I accept Paypal.


----------



## roo1234 (Jul 9, 2016)

Obvioulsy staged and fake. It was tough though to bring Kubrick and crew to the moon to film it all


----------



## xile6 (Jul 9, 2016)

Idk.
But i do know the russian made it before us.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 9, 2016)

xile6 said:


> Idk.
> But i do know the russian made it before us.


The Russians made it into space first. The USA made it on the Moon first.


----------



## Depravo (Jul 9, 2016)

rasputin said:


> Dupiter



That's desperate.

It's a composite image. Aurora photographed in ultraviolet light superimposed over an existing, visible light image of Jupiter.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 9, 2016)

No one has argued my radiation point yet..


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 9, 2016)

WeedZ said:


> No one has argued my radiation point yet..


That's because it's a very valid point. Astronauts typically get around a month's worth of radiation after spending a couple hours on the moon.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 9, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> My communication skills are not required for validation nor disqualify me from debating. If your argument is simply to belittle me, then that is not going to work. Regardless of how I worded my statements that I used in this conversation, it doesn't make a difference. I still haven't seen anything that proves it didn't happen.


Ad hominem sucks.



Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## xile6 (Jul 10, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> The Russians made it into space first. The USA made it on the Moon first.


and you where brain wash to think so.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jul 10, 2016)

xile6 said:


> and you where brain wash to think so.


I am embarrassed to be in the same species as people like you.


----------



## xile6 (Jul 10, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> I am embarrassed to be in the same species as people like you.


lol. but no really they did made iyt to the moon before us.


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 10, 2016)

xile6 said:


> lol. but no really they did made iyt to the moon before us.


I'm sure they did, Mr. Chekov.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 10, 2016)

WeedZ said:


> No one has argued my radiation point yet..



http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm


----------



## TheYellowFist (Jul 11, 2016)

Everyone knows that the moon landing was shot in the ocean, you can even see the reflection of the earth off of the actual moon!


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 11, 2016)

There is one thing that has always bothered me. We were fighting tooth and nail against the USSR at the time, which posses one simple thought from me. If we faked it, why didn't the USSR weigh in on that? Think about it for a second, they could have easily proven it was faked and exposed the US and NASA as frauds, that would have been an even bigger victory for the USSR than landing a man on the moon. But they never said anything about it and that seriously bothers me. Real or fake, the fact that the USSR remained so quiet on the topic has always been a concern to me.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> There is one thing that has always bothered me. We were fighting tooth and nail against the USSR at the time, which posses one simple thought from me. If we faked it, why didn't the USSR weigh in on that? Think about it for a second, they could have easily proven it was faked and exposed the US and NASA as frauds, that would have been an even bigger victory for the USSR than landing a man on the moon. But they never said anything about it and that seriously bothers me. Real or fake, the fact that the USSR remained so quiet on the topic has always been a concern to me.


Its all part of the conspiracy. The USSR was in on it to. They were secretly NASA's greatest ally. It was all part of their plan to take over our minds. Don't believe what anyone tells you. Everything is a lie.


----------



## rasputin (Jul 11, 2016)

LOL


----------



## Feeling it! (Jul 31, 2016)

The flag waved to the sides which of course was not natural and it was not gravity......otherwise it would of been going up and down.
there was 1 star in the sky...........that by itself no matter the angle can never be explained if it was 1 it would of been alot or 0


----------



## SapphireDaisy (Aug 23, 2016)

No i don't think the moon landing was faked


----------



## Flame (Aug 23, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> Its all part of the conspiracy. The USSR was in on it to. They were secretly NASA's greatest ally. It was all part of their plan to take over our minds. Don't believe what anyone tells you. Everything is a lie.



I KNEW IT!


----------



## exdeath255 (Aug 23, 2016)

You cant know for sure. If you believe one way or the other, you are still siding with possible untruth. I choose neither side.


----------



## phalk (Aug 23, 2016)

QuarkTheAwesome said:


> Wasn't there an episode of Mythbusters where they shone lasers at a retro-reflector the Apollo guys left up there and got some laser back, thus proving that there's a retro-reflector on the moon?
> 
> Not that I'm saying Mythbusters is a reputable source, just saying that if a reputable source were to conduct the same test (I'm sure someone has) it'd be pretty definitive.


----------



## Vipera (Feb 15, 2017)

I don't think it was a hoax. However, I don't consider "stupid" or "retarded" those people who think otherwise, because there are a few odd points:

- The flag waves
- The USA would have done anything to surpass Russia in the 60s

It's not the first time a government would lie to its people. I personally don't think it's the case, but I don't think the people who think it's a hoax are at the same level as those who say that Bush did 9/11 or that the Holocaust never happened.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 15, 2017)

Vipera said:


> I don't think it was a hoax. However, I don't consider "stupid" or "retarded" those people who think otherwise, because there are a few odd points:
> 
> - The flag waves
> - The USA would have done anything to surpass Russia in the 60s
> ...


Obviously the Holocaust happened. But I'm not too sure that Bush didn't have something to do with 9/11. The are seeming connections that haven't been fully resolved. And obviously, it wouldn't be the first time a government orchestrated an attack on its own citizens to gain favor for a war. You have to remember, the us wanted to invade middle eastern countries for years before this event, but failed to do so as they couldn't get the go ahead to do so. I'm not saying bush did. I'm saying there is the possibility he, and others, had a part to play in it.

Edit, also bush was extremely worried about being tried for treason and war crimes after his term, you have to ask yourself, why?


----------



## gnmmarechal (Feb 15, 2017)

Vipera said:


> I don't think it was a hoax. However, I don't consider "stupid" or "retarded" those people who think otherwise, because there are a few odd points:
> 
> - The flag waves
> - The USA would have done anything to surpass Russia in the 60s
> ...


The flag waving isn't weird.

https://www.quora.com/Since-there-i...lapping-in-pictures-of-the-first-Moon-landing


----------



## Sliter (Feb 15, 2017)

talking with a friend, we just noticed one thing
a lot of USA "old achievements" came form stuff they don't really made.
Like, the light bulb hat was a thing that someone else created, but all credit went to Thomas Edson, that "just" made a big improvement of it, if you look for the history you can see all this info, but as I remind seeing american cartoons, they teach that just like he did everything lol .
Other this was the Wright brothers, that USA gives all te credit for the aviation stuff, the truth is that they just had an airplane that could fly with external propulsion, while Santos Dumont make one that could get out the floor by itself, was documented and televised... them they come " we did it first lol, that nobody saw before, showed something without this important feature and get all te credit xD
And then, nobody knew about going to space actually, but just afer someone on  the " rival countries" did something , they sudden come going to the moon with  less technology than a snes? Not that I don't believe this at all, but today, with more technology we don't have more photos or televised  records of new expeditions, online lives or even being more accessible to everybody doing it ...
I mean , light bulbs and plane aren't there for everyone on the start, production where limited, wasn't cheap , but stuff evolved, made it very common, very more accessible and safe, today we have  lighbulbs that cost almost nothing and light forever, planes are safer and technically more accessible, but going to the moon we don't have any more "popular" , even the other times people went there , where's more photos or videos? are they even still going there to explore today ?   why we know less of what are going today than the first time they went there ?


----------



## Viri (Feb 16, 2017)

Nope. Because if we did fake it, the Soviets at the time would have said something, and absolutely loved an opportunity to mock us.


----------



## Westwoodo (Feb 19, 2017)

Not a chance they went to the moon.


----------



## Hells Malice (Feb 19, 2017)

You'd have to be braindead to think the moon landing was fake.
Everything points to it being real, and any time any conspiracy theorist brings up a point to try and argue it, they get immediately crushed by facts.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Feb 20, 2017)

Westwoodo said:


> Not a chance they went to the moon.


You're going to have to justify your claim, should you seek to persuade but a single person.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 20, 2017)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> There is one thing that has always bothered me. We were fighting tooth and nail against the USSR at the time, which posses one simple thought from me. If we faked it, why didn't the USSR weigh in on that? Think about it for a second, they could have easily proven it was faked and exposed the US and NASA as frauds, that would have been an even bigger victory for the USSR than landing a man on the moon. But they never said anything about it and that seriously bothers me. Real or fake, the fact that the USSR remained so quiet on the topic has always been a concern to me.


For some reason I recall in the USSR (and other USSR ally countries) that some schools actually would teach that it was fake propaganda.
Edit: not implying that the USSR actually believed that tho.


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Feb 20, 2017)

this thread is cancer and everyone knows it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 20, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> this thread is cancer and everyone knows it.


CANCER IS FROM CHEMTRAILS, SHEEPLE WILL IGNORE THIS BUT STAY WOKE


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 20, 2017)

RevPokemon said:


> For some reason I recall in the USSR (and other USSR ally countries) that some schools actually would teach that it was fake propaganda.
> Edit: not implying that the USSR actually believed that tho.


Within their own country though. Not really effective on people outside of their country


----------



## Westwoodo (Feb 20, 2017)

Logan Pockrus said:


> You're going to have to justify your claim, should you seek to persuade but a single person.


I don't need to justify I answered the question that was asked.


----------



## Logan Pockrus (Feb 20, 2017)

Westwoodo said:


> I don't need to justify I answered the question that was asked.


Well, most people say why they do or don't believe it was real.  I'd like to know why anyone would think this way.  Regardless, that's your decision...


----------



## rasputin (Feb 20, 2017)

Look, it's the church of nasa. Let us worship thy holy cardboard, curtain rods and shiny foil.

Remember to only pray in the morning when the earth's travel around the sun means the ground on the holy ball is pushing up towards your feet at 66,600 mph. Praying in the evening when the ground is whizzing away from your feet at 66,700mph is very bad and is the action of heathens.


----------



## Westwoodo (Feb 20, 2017)

Logan Pockrus said:


> Well, most people say why they do or don't believe it was real.  I'd like to know why anyone would think this way.  Regardless, that's your decision...


Even if I state my reasoning it will start a flame war regardless of people saying it will or not.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Feb 20, 2017)

rasputin said:


> Look, it's the church of nasa. Let us worship thy holy cardboard, curtain rods and shiny foil.
> 
> Remember to only pray in the morning when the earth's travel around the sun means the ground on the holy ball is pushing up towards your feet at 66,600 mph. Praying in the evening when the ground is whizzing away from your feet at 66,700mph is very bad and is the action of heathens.


I feel like no matter what I say to argue against this, you're still going to keep foolishly believing that the Earth is flat/the moon landing is fake/chemtrails control us all.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Feb 20, 2017)

Maybe it was like that episode of Brickleberry, where they thought Steve was a "Martian" and faked a landing on "Mars."


----------



## rasputin (Feb 20, 2017)

GalladeGuy said:


> I feel like no matter what I say to argue against this, you're still going to keep foolishly believing that the Earth is flat/the moon landing is fake/chemtrails control us all.




Oh look a programmed response from an indoctrinated repeatophile.

There is no father Christmas, i don't need to explain or have a theory about the universe and everything to prove that to you... Take from it what you want, I do not care.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 20, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> this thread is cancer and everyone knows it.


I mean, your like 9 pages late


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 21, 2017)

Most believed its real ? According to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ould-have-been-exposed-within-four-years-sci/


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Feb 21, 2017)

VinLark said:


> I mean, your like 9 pages late



better late than never.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Feb 21, 2017)

rasputin said:


> Oh look a programmed response from an indoctrinated repeatophile.
> 
> There is no father Christmas, i don't need to explain or have a theory about the universe and everything to prove that to you... Take from it what you want, I do not care.


I don't believe in god either. I'm just saying that the moon landing wasn't faked and that the Earth isn't flat.


----------

