Why did Stanley Kubrick fake the moon landing?

Does this look fake to you?

Attached: file.png (800x460, 551K)

>99.99% all white men nasa needing to fake a moon landing

you faggots couldve fooled me if it was current day diversity nasa.

Attached: Smuggy TayTay.jpg (640x640, 49K)

No but he’s the only filmmaker in history who possibly could and it’s quite the compliment when you have conspiracy theories around your talent

It's just incredibly frustrating.
As an analogy, think of a grown man still living with his parents. Shit will only get worse for him the older he gets since he'll never learn self-sufficiency, he'll have to deal (badly) with aging parents, and anything that affects his parents will affect him since they're all under the same roof.
Likewise, humanity can't stay on Earth forever.
Either we get fucked by an asteroid, disease, famine, volcanoes, climate change; manmade or not, regardless of our influence, at some point in the future the Earth will be uninhabitable. Also if we stay, we'll never learn the tools necessary to fix Earth in the case of catastrophic events. For instance, terraforming a Jovian moon or Mars could teach us valuable geo-engineering things to help Earth.

take this as a rough estimate of events and it's eye-opening how badly we need to leave: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Attached: doomguy.png (283x244, 103K)

Zoomers unironically believe that we could simply build a new giant rocket with the push of a button just because we have iPhones now.

Wrong. Don't look at the moon scenes. Look at the monkey landscape shots. You can easily see the foreground is real and the background is an image like a painting or projection. You can clearly see the line separating the set and the background image.
Now go look at all the "real" moon landing footage. Exactly the same thing. A highly detailed foreground with rocks and sand and a clear divide from the flat background image.

Here is where Kubrick did his work. The moon scene in 2001 only has shots in that underground hole with no distant mountains or landscape.

Does this look real to you?

2:54:
youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=174

I've seen episodes of Thunderbirds with more convincing special effects.

>You can easily see the foreground is real and the background is an image like a painting or projection
>this didn’t exist in movies before Kubrick so only he was capable of directing a fake moon landing

What the fuck? Fake backdrops have been a thing since the dawn of filmmaking.

>no stars
Yeah

You moon landing deniers are mentally ill.

>has 0 understanding of physics and photography

Look up at the sky in the daytime.
Where did the stars go?

Yes actually it does look real

These threads are mostly found on /x/ which is far and away the absolute lowest IQ board on Yea Forums and always will be.

shekels
inb4 reddit explanations like he was such an autism he really got them to the moon

It didn't happen retard. We did go to space and orbited the earth but no one went to the moon. The moon landing was shot in a Hollywood studio with Kubrick directing.

Attached: 1553303271152.png (184x274, 7K)

Go back to wakandaland.

>The moon landing
>The
You know there were 6 right?
of course you don't.

How come nobody fucking talks about the fact that they seemingly had perfectly synchronized intergalactic video and sound fuckign streaming but like 50 years after the internet coverture can't even match this feat?

Is everybody fucking retarded?

Attached: file.png (480x386, 150K)

Also must point out that things like this actually mean it's more likely to be real than fake. Because if it was fake, they would absolutely add stars.

>Kubrick
>filming anything in California

Based retard.

radio style transmission is pretty straightforward. I think they just needed fuckhueg antennae on earth to pick up the signal.
also US internet coverage is hindered by ISP monopolies and has no real incentive to improve because we just keep paying them.

>Makes 2001
>NASA knows their film will get fucked up due to the radiation and there's no possible way to broadcast / capture legible footage
>Government asks based Stanley to fake the footage. They throw copious amounts of money at him which will mean he can finance all his own films for the rest of his life (with full creative control) and still live comfortably.
>Cautiously agrees
>No one questions the footage
>Feels guilt over time, but knows he can't say shit.
>Government thinks Stanley is a good boy and can be trusted, start inviting him to shady elite parties.
>Stanley gets spooked, but doesn't say anything. Being the autist he is, he researches the shit out of things and notices that there is a pedophilia connection.
>Stanley realizes just how fucked these people are, decides to stay permanently in England.
>Won't even return to the US for filming.
>Over the rest of his career, drops subtle hints in his films about the fake footage and shadow government -- MK Ultra, Monarch, etc.
>Government doesn't realize Stanley is dropping hints until the early 90s when certain people start catching on
>Smear campaign is started to make Stanley seem like a reclusive, paranoid psycho.
>Realizing he doesn't have much time, and getting more paranoid about being silenced, he decides to create his final film revealing as much as possible -- esoterically
>Even when marketing the film, Stanley tries to hide as much information as possible
>When EWS is complete, he is poisoned
>Footage is removed from the film, but things are so interwoven certain scenes have to remain in order to be viewable
>Reviews are favorable, but a lot of critics bash EWS on release -- many of whom are paid off -- in order to bury the film
>It doesn't work

Attached: 1554338206271.png (725x1079, 177K)

Based retard, your phone is way more impressive than that shit. Look into feed delays.

>I've seen episodes of Thunderbirds
Nice try hiding your age, zoomy.

You would have to go to the dark side of the moon to see stars.

It was a movie that was being shown on TV, not a live broadcast.

what Kubrick should I watch tonight?

Dr. Strangelove

And if they did add stars, you'd still say it was real because you'd expect to see stars. Basically, whatever they did, you'd still believe it.

Is there anyone that unironically still believes the moon landing never happened or it's just flat earthers doing that now?

It was a live broadcast, you ignorant child.

imagine how much faith it takes to believe ANY of this contrived nonsense when the simpler answer (it really happened) can be proved with easily found sources and can be proven by third parties.

Bullshit. It was a movie made to look like a live broadcast, which is why the picture quality was so good for its time.

Really? That board has a lower IQ than Yea Forums or Yea Forums?

>easily found sources
Nice bootlickign, cunto.

>proven by third parties
"""""""""""""third parties ;)"""""""""""""

I've no reason not to believe it. There's plenty of evidence that it happened. "no stars" is not reason enough anyway. Just saying that you have to look beyond what you expect to see, because you don't know shit about what it would really look like.

>"""""""""""""third parties ;)"""""""""""""
the USSR tracked the entire mission and confirmed it happened.
If you say that the U.S. faked it to stick it to the Russians, why would our enemy of the time admit we did the thing that made their own space program look like shit.

He didnt say the landing didnt happen you fucking ape , learn to read

Attached: 1553561177306.png (431x428, 22K)

Before you argue with moon deniers remind yourself these people think the earth is a disc and we're stuck to the ground because the disk is constantly flying upwards into space.

oh right, it's the even more retarded position that we couldn't broadcast it. that makes it so much better.

The picture quality of the live broadcast sucked. The hq stuff was captured on the surface on film with specially made movie cameras.

I'd say in an environment without an atmosphere, stars would shine quite brightly, even on film. you can't compare photography conditions on Earth to that on the moon.

The Chinese missions confirmed it more recently, and even took pictures of the American landing sites.

All of history is faked. Of course there is a "real" history but we have very little information on it.

They had a mutual agreement to keep the lid on the "truth".

It's turtles all the way down.

Attached: 1551633357948.png (408x450, 35K)

The brightness of the sun washes them out, you mental midget.

>"If you believe in X, you must believe in Y."
Nice strawman, faggot.

Yeah. You know how on Yea Forums and Yea Forums you can make whatever outrageous claims you want until about halfway through the thread someone asks you to post a source? That second part never happens on /x/

That might be what most would expect, that's my point. That if they were faking it without having been there, they would think that too, and add stars. But a lot of things in reality are not what you would expect.

>Russia is a legit source

Fucking pathetic for you to really pretend they don't work in unsion under the same masters. Bet you think there wasn't any collusion too.

I looked it up just for you bby

>If you wanted to take a picture of a friend in direct sunlight, you'd adjust your camera settings in two ways. You'd narrow the aperture, which keeps the light-collecting area on the lens small to avoid letting in too much light: the same reason your pupils constrict in bright sunlight. You'd also speed up the shutter speed so the camera sensor would only let in light for a brief moment. If you wanted to take a picture of that same friend at night, you'd probably slow down the shutter speed and widen the aperture so you could let in enough light for a good shot.

>But what if your friend was illuminated at nighttime? Then you'd have to choose what you wanted in your photo. If you wanted to include the stars in the sky, you'd need to make sure your friend stood extra still to avoid blurring the shot while the slow shutter and wide aperture let in enough light. If you kept the aperture small and the shutter speed fast, you'd capture a sharp, decently bright picture of your friend, but the sky would be dark because it wouldn't send enough light into the lens.

>That's the trade-off the Apollo astronauts had to make. The sky on the moon is black as night not because it is night, but because there's no atmosphere to scatter the daylight the way ours does on Earth. But make no mistake: there is every bit as much sunlight at midday on the moon as there is on our home planet. That makes the lunar surface incredibly bright. The scenery on the moon was the most important thing to capture in the Apollo photographs, so the camera was adjusted to make the most out of that scenery. As a result, the relatively dim stars in the background didn't register in any of the shots. No hoax: just a trick of the camera lens.

>sun is bright enough to wash out the stars but doesn't cook the astronauts alive in their spacesuits because there's no atmosphere to protect them from the radiation and extreme heat

There is no other reason to not believe something with so much overwhelming evidence if not believing that the Moon doesn't exist and NASA is the biggest institute in the world that controls everything, even the soviets and the chinese.
Other than being legally retarded, of course.

Just give me to me straight bros, was Temujin (Ghenkis Khan) actually 6'6 and red haired?

Attached: GHGJ.png (464x672, 565K)

Attached: 1552884341847.png (645x729, 93K)

Attached: 1551303370965.png (621x702, 56K)

Ever heard of snow blindness

hey guys
I never really believed in the fake moon landing shit because wouldn't soviet russia jump at the chance to disprove it and shame america?

iPhones are far more powerful than anything used during the moon hoax.

>All of history is faked
Seeing how much revisionism and "fake news" there's been in recent years, I'm convinced our entire history is a lie.

Hell, 90% of the posters here are bots.

>nobody in politics ever gave a shit about space

> it was just about one upping the russians

Pick one.

But hilarious. You can't deny the humor.

0110101101001010101010100101011010101010101011000101010101010101010101001011110101110101010100011001110100101001010101010101010110101000101010101011010001101100

what kind of evidence, short of sending you to the moon, would you NOT dismiss as being part of some global effort to suppress information?
because it's not just Russia that can confirm we went there, I just want to make sure I'm not wasting time.

You try going to the moon in an iphone then

Hey retard, the strategy for getting to the moon hasn’t changed just because we have some more computers lying around now. We’d still need to build and thoroughly test multiple giant ass rockets that cost billions of dollars each. We can’t just hit a button and 3D print one of those.

Don't tell this autist that the moon phase of the trip is easier than the launch. It'll ruin his empty day.

To see if he could. I honestly believe that was the reason.

Empirical records would be a start.

You know you can look things up yourself, right? Use multiple sources, extrapolate the truth from there, and so on. just because the biggest mainstream source of news gets things wrong doesn't mean that it's the only source of news nor that the truth isn't unfindable.
break out from your brainletism, I believe in you.

This guy gets it.

I love how people try to pass off faking the moon footage at being incredibly complicated.

>>grainy black and white

here's a whole page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Listen fucking retard. Here's this thing called temporal context, just because you can just take your iphone and apply a black and white and grain filter on footage it doesn't mean it was the case in 1969.

>Use multiple sources
>95% of the news is controlled by the same company, has the same liberal bias, and owned by the same person

Okay, I'll use multiple biased sourced to determine what's "true". Bet you think Snopes and Politico are accurate fact-checking sites, too.

why did they destroy everything related to the moon landing then. look into it

>perfectly synchronized intergalactic video and sound fuckign streaming

"Synchronized" to...what? Do you even know what the word means? Ans "Streaming sound"? Sound broadcast has been possible since the invention of the radio, spastic.

Admission: old fuck here. I watched the first landing on a small B&W TV with my family, as a kid. It was delayed, I still remember my engineer father explaining why it took so long for sound and video to travel from the moon to the earth. It's only a 2 second delay, anyway.

But keep telling us about "synchronized intergalactic video". It's fascinating.

(Nobody tell the autist that "intergalactic" means "between two galaxies"...which isn't moon-earth transmissions. Don't want to ruin his fun using words he doesn't understand)

I meant in terms of researching history.

>wikipedia

Tremendous bait my man, thanks for the laughs.

I don't even believe the moon is real

Speaking of blindness, why wasn't the surface of the Moon bright as fuck?

Attached: apollo11fullmoon.jpg (1041x1046, 93K)

This

Now this is actually based and beyond redpilled.

Not gonna lie bros, the moon looks reddit as fuck.

What if the original, historical texts themselves are a lie?

Here's a tip for you morons, get yourself a powerful enough telescope and you can see yourself the landers, the USVs and the rover, since you can't trust anyone on planet earth because everyone is part of this big conspiracy to fool a retard so important like yourself.

But then again, you'd say ((((they)))) have tampered with your eyes and you can't trust that either.

Attached: 1431580057315.png (481x519, 45K)

you're not my bro

>wikipedia is a single source
if your porn addicted ADHD brain couldn't spend enough time on the page, perhaps you would have noticed an entire section of citations.

There are even links that take you to the source!

yeah everyone just has a hubble telescope laying around

>2019
>being retarded

I dunno maybe cameras back in those days had some kind of shades or filters or settings that restricted the amount of light getting in, creating a false image or something, i guess we'll never know

Don't worry, i assumed that you retards were also poor. It comes hand in hand ;)

that's why you use multiple sources to cross-reference and get a consensus.

Because they timed the missions so the sun was at an angle so it wouldn't blind them, or be too low and it would be too dark.

Do you really think they sent men there, without researching every possible aspect?

Name a greater object built by man, you can't

Attached: Saturn V.jpg (1600x2560, 517K)

Don't even try. We're dealing with "Idiocracy" levels of stupid here.

Yes and haven’t been back since the early 70’s. Yet since then there has been no attempt to create a moon base to go further into the reaches of space. Only trips to low earth orbit and CGI composites.

NASA is a tax scam set for the world elites to keep the populace in believing they are a worthless spec in a pointless universe.

Attached: 57A35880-FA30-4E45-A8E7-69D2AF3BF399.jpg (660x510, 41K)

My neighbours have a really nice house. Built it 3 years ago.

THEY ONLY HAD A BACKUP PLAN TO FAKE THE MOON LANDING IN CASE IT DIDNT WORK IRL

BUT IT DID WORK
AND USA IS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME

APOLLO 11 IMAX WAS SO FAR THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR

Attached: news-021419a-lg.jpg (1080x1920, 255K)

In case something went wrong. It would've been demoralizing if the world didn't at least think we got there. But I do think we did get there but the film sent with the astronauts was destroyed by x-rays so they had to use the pre-recorded sound stage stuff.

I don't believe they sent men there at all.

False dilemma, you don't need anything even half as powerful as the Hubble to see the plethora of man made objects left on the moon in the 6 missions that landed people there.

Why bother, they'll just shove the goalposts to a new spot.

"The whole thing was a hoax!"
"Thousands of people watched the launch in person."
"Uhhhhh....we launched to orbit but we never went to the moon!"
"Hundreds of amateur astronomers with telescopes and radio dishes tracked the separation and engine firing of the command capsule towards the moon, and tracked the transmissions."
"Uhhhh, NASA faked it."
"How?"
"Uhhh. Kubrick!"

It's a never ending cascade of schitzophrenia and autism. And hilarious.

>climate change
>we're the cause of it
>dude let's just to go to another planet and the the same thing until we need to move
Cringe

wait, i saw these exact responses a long time ago? is this deja vu?

Show me raw, unedited footage of someone zooming in on the moon and seeing all the clutter.

He did it for money but what about those who paid him to do it

Me neither, it was women.

Attached: file.png (409x606, 464K)

The moon landing never happened. This was proved in the 90s by the scientific community. Yet some people still believe we went to the moon because of Hollywood

>>climate change
>>we're the cause of it
Oh, my God, is there literally nothing you gullible idiots won't believe?

It was me btw, sorry.

>NO MAN CAN DEFEAT ME!
t. MOON

Attached: 1529369744464.gif (245x238, 768K)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

They put mirrors on the moon just for "its fake" faggots like you.

Attached: Apollo_11_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.jpg (800x808, 226K)

>Yes and haven’t been back since the early 70’s
because there's no political incentive. that doesn't seem farfetched.
>elites to keep the populace in believing they are a worthless spec in a pointless universe.
this is the worst interpretation of our place in the universe. yes, we may be a speck, but we're a speck that can think about ourselves, how cool is that? It means we're pretty special, as far as we can tell. It might make you feel insignificant and powerless, but to me it invokes a feeling of duty; we might be the only configuration of atoms that can think about itself, but there's an obligation almost to seek out other atoms that can think about themselves.

tldr stop being so negative

They desperately want to believe it because science is their religion, and scientists wouldn't lie now, would they?

How do you explain all the other space agencies and independent entities outside the US who closely monitored and confirmed the moon landings?

The Soviets don't dispute that the moon landings happened, when they would have every reason to do so.

Attached: ayy lmao smoking pepe.jpg (499x499, 35K)

Lol, you think a telescope is a camera, you fucking retard?
I told you to see for yourself, no matter what I show you you'd ignore it. GO LOOK AT THE MOON.

>because of Hollywood
THE JEWS! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING THIS TIME

IS THERE GOLD UP THERE THEY WANT TO KEEP TO THEMSELVES

I hate to feed the schitzophrenics, but the law of optics makes the actual sites impossible to see, even with the Hubble. People with telescopes watched the ascent and separation, and the flight to and from the moon, but nobody can see the actual site from the earth.

We've sent several fly-bys which have photographed the sites in high res, though.

Now watch the autists start chimping out. It never fails. "See?!?! You're wrong, so the whole thing is a HOAX!"

It's just sad, mentally ill people filling their empty lives with nonsense, and shitposters egging them on. It's Yea Forums.

Don't forget the "muh no stars", "muh waving flag" and "muh weird shadows" that only prove that the photos came from the moon

that was a pretty bad interpretation of my post user.

kek

>doubles triples of truth
Checked.

Attached: 1554337809687.png (283x310, 165K)

And some people believe in ghosts. Your point?

>We've sent several fly-bys which have photographed the sites in high res, though.
this.
also topographical scans by other agencies (Japan, China) can prove a disturbance of dust in the landing areas.

This.
The original reels have been convienantly lost and the telemetry data has been lost. Hilarious.

Global Joo conspiracy to destroy society and that's also why I can't get laid

The moon has one of the lowest albedos in the solar system.

Based chad user streaming all over the fuckign thread that just happened and bringing forward the truth!

The truth is they never came back from the moon. Spaceboys didn't wanna leave. They faked it to hide how rad it is up there.

>the cardboard, gaffer tape, and construction paper "lander" in the background
lol, if this doesn't convince you it's all bullshit, nothing will.

Attached: moon2.jpg (2349x2373, 435K)

>This was proved in the 90s by the scientific community.

Yeh, you're gonna need to back that up with some cites there, autist.

For pure entertainment's sake, of course.

Moon Deniers > Flat Earther

I didnt even mention jews and this is how you react? And people who question the moon landing are the insane ones?
I'm just saying to not believe everything you're told like a mindless sheep

This should make you question the true nature of their relationship, not the absurdity of the moon landing.

>I'm just saying to not believe everything you're told like a mindless sheep
yeah you just believe conspiracy theorists like a mindless sheep. what a difference.

They are both the same kind of retards that like to pretend to feel smart by blindly repeating a semi-popular theory where everyone in the world gets fooled except for them

>synchronized intergalactic video

Attached: el goblino.png (200x164, 44K)

Based big dick contra-nihilist.

So tired of all the edgy kids in this site.

Attached: 1400950826452.jpg (553x567, 80K)

Those external sheets are solar shields, dumbass. LMAO

Attached: 1523485113688.jpg (600x899, 97K)

Why would an American deny their greatest feat?

>mentally ill people filling their empty lives with nonsense, and shitposters egging them on. It's Yea Forums.
Banner request.

It's a low effort shitpost to egg the crazies on, dummy. Don't fuck up his roll.

>>can’t just hit a button and make rockets
Oh that’s right, we don’t know how to get to the moon anymore.
You idiots will believe in anything.

* Where did the Saturn V rockets go once launched? If they went anywhere but the moon, why didn't the Soviets call the US out?

* How did NASA fake incoming telemetry from the spacecraft without error 7 times? Shouldn't the Soviets have uncovered it?

* What natural phenomena explains the presence of retroreflectors on the Moon's surface?

* How, technically, did NASA/Kubric fake the TV footage? You would need a huge quantity of absolutely perfectly spliced footage. Any burns, dust, etc, would give the game away.

Etc. In a technical sense it would be at least twice as easy to go to the moon as it would be to fake it in 1969.

>construction paper
if you had an ounce of baiting ability in your body you would have called it paper mache

>from the earth to the moon is intergalactic
...

Yea Forums can be really good outside capeshit and race baiting threads

"And those stripes are designed to make it go faster!"

Attached: retard2.jpg (499x376, 29K)

Attached: 1531984958127.png (979x874, 132K)

youtu.be/HyMm4rJemtI

SHUT IT DOWN!

Attached: EA.png (353x282, 162K)

Why don't we build a moon base before going to mars? Seems like the logical next step to me.

Meanwhile, /pol/ doesnt think Trump colluded with Russia.
Despite his taxes showing it(why he wont release them), he fired and hired people to cover it up, he wont speak to Putin anywhere but alone, and he lies through his teeth everyday over stupid shit.
>So easy to see the moon landi g was fake kek basedredpill!

>paper mache
You mean papper mashay?

Low property value

Why dont you build a house in Cuba before moving to Florida?

You *do* know what papier-mâché is, right?

based schizo bring up /pol/ and trump for 0 reason whatsoever

I bet you believe in the Holocaust too

The real lulz are the schitzo's who sperg that we didn't have the technology to get to the moon. Bitches, we build atomic bombs with less technology than we needed to get to the moon. And it wasn't magic level technology, it was just hard problems. We could build subs in that era that could stay submerged for days, supporting a large crew, so the technical hurdles to keep a 3 man crew alive with air and heat was not that difficult.

But, they move the goalposts around so much, they have wheels strapped to them for convenience.

Goes without saying but just because the chronological sequence. The reason people ridicule and oppose flat eathists so strongly is because moon landing deniers managed thru fire and flame to become a historied institution. They fear for it to happen again and luckily for mankind they can't stop it this time as they couldn't last time.

Coward.

It's pointless, the moon is 4 days away from Earth while Mars around 6 months away.

Oh noes, I've been trumped with a screenshot of a technical paper that's...I'm not sure what your autism is saying, user.

What about the Van Allen radiation belt they didn't know was there and should definitely have killed them before they even got to the moon?

Based redpill user gets defensive when his king retard is spoken about

>you think x
>I bet you think totally unrelated y too!
based non-argument poster

>What natural phenomena explains the presence of retroreflectors on the Moon's surface
Water...

Why are moon landing believers so aggressive?

Budgets. It's always budgets.

Go to bed, Mueller. You tried and failed.

>no atmosphere
>1/6th gravity
launches from the moon would be a fraction of the cost from Earth. of course not counting the costs of building a landing pad/ VAB on the moon.

Mueller works for the attorney general and is a Republican you retard

People who have their worldviews challenged are often hostile. It's the same with politics and religion.

They took one of the country's biggest gambles and launched, but found out that the speed that they traveled through them negated the danger. Van Allen himself admitted that, afterwards.

Not to feed the schitzo's, but some aspects of the moon missions were done by the seat of their pants, and they took some big gambles, that paid off.

You need oxygen to create a launch that will get you to Mars. You also need people on the land to calculate the launch since MARS ISNT IN EARTH’S orbit you neanderthal

And what did the AG say about the investigation, dumbass? NO COLOOSHUN!

I'm working for an experiment on the ISS and have access to NASA voice loops. They say that there is plan to stay on the moon for an extended period of time. Implying a moonbase will be there soon.

news.gallup.com/poll/3712/Landing-Man-Moon-Publics-View.aspx

>A July 13-14 poll asked Americans if they agreed with a statement, based on an assertion appearing on the NASA web site, that "the human race accomplished its single greatest technological achievement of all time by landing a man on the moon." Only 39% agree with this statement. Fifty-nine percent don't.

You think my comments are aggressive?

LOL.

Ah bloo bloo. Why should I pat you on the head and gently support your schitzophrenia while wiping your ass? I'm being nice in this thread, normally I'd mock the living fuck out of moon deniers.

Wow, there's just a convenient explanation for every plothole.

>he doesn’t know about the van allen belts

Attached: 3776A0FD-A448-479A-86FF-51C36B80B1B9.gif (391x365, 890K)

>ou also need people on the land to calculate the launch since MARS ISNT IN EARTH’S
wow this a totally insurmountable task

Can i go visit?

Oh noes, he raised me with...look, schitzo. You have to make SOME sense. If you're not even going to try, what's the point?

Because if the Commie Russians landed first that would have a been a huge blow to America and it's pride

We needed to fake the landing to keep those Bolshevik bastards in line. 20 years later their empire collapses and they've been drinking themselves stupid ever since

I'm going to choose to believe you, cool, good to here. Moonbase would be best way to test living off earth rather than hoping that shit works when you get to mars

You still need to launch from Earth to get to the fucking moon.

C'mon. Try harder than that.

The Shining is littered with references to the fake moon landing. NASA had seen Kubrick's impressive and realistic work with Space Odyssey 2001 and they knew he was the guy who'd be able to help them fake the moon landings. Kubrick reveals a lot in The Shining.

>>political reasons
Hence why It was faked.

>>feel a sense of obigation
I agree with you but this is not the general feeling. Most people feel they are serving a pointless existence.

>If I run fast enough through this house fire, I won't get burned alive

Because the truth hurts

But once you have an establiished base, you can build shit there and launch things easier. If there's ice there you got hydrogen and oxygen

Zoomers that think that iPhones are mankind's greatest technological achievement

>Hence why It was faked.
then why did the USSR confirm it was real?

Not if you have an ISS. Which is part of it's mission, to be a jumping off point, to save the cost of lifting the entire mission up the gravity well in one shot. ISS, SpaceX, it's all part of a long term plan to have safe, cheap transit up, to assemble bigger platforms for things like Mars missions. The Shuttle was part of it, too, they assembled parts of the ISS with it.

>Russia gets first satellite in space
>Russia lands a probe on Venus
>Russia has the first cosmonaut in space

But it's the losing the Moon landing that would have hurt America's pride?

>But once you have an establiished base,
thanks
I thought that was assumed in my post, but some anons I guess didn't pick up on that.

Attached: planetarysuite.jpg (900x426, 198K)

why not just erase the prints of the movie anyhow if you are that powerful
like what the fuck
>"oh yes 4 days before cinemas in countries show the movie we kill him and magically alter EVERY single cut on earth that has already been distributed"
like honestly come one. you'd have to believe that no cinema anywhere had a final copy of the movie already
and then you'd have to believe that instead of just destroying the movie and make up some story you edit out "crucial" stuff and leave the pretty blatant obvious "elites are sickos and kill whomever they want without punity" in?
and I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories but this shit of the movie being altered by the alleged killers is just nonsense

CERN