How could them televise this event in real time in fucking realtime from the fucking moon in 1969? Was it all a farce?

It is hard to believe they got there with 1960's technology 2bh I mean they didn't even have floppy disks or disposable lighters (googles 1970's inventions)

Moon landing denial is such a fascinating phenomenon. Even my brother, who has a degree in ASTROPHYSICS, has recently begun to question the plausibility of the moon landings. Now how is it possible that someone with a scientific education, someone who fully understands the nature of the solar system and the maths that made the moon landing possible, how is it that he of all people is now questioning the technology of late 20th century space travel?

Well the answer is simple: he's unemployed, he smokes a lot of weed, and he's not having sex.

It wasn't real-time dipshit. They literally had satellite lag and had to account for the signal being relayed when the moon was out of line of sight with Houston.

>no stars when the sun shines
NO FUCKING WAY?!?

I wonder if any NASA staff working on this mission ever dreamed that one day stinky basement dwellers would be screeching that it was all faked.

They are in space, you can see the sun and other stars in space

>streaming
There was no internet back then. Literally impossible.

old batterys are heavy

would cost a fortune to launch them

They don't have the earths fucking atmosphere to block out the light from the stars

They had a big directional antenna

Attached: apollo-erectable-s-band.jpg (800x792, 246K)

>I have no argument

and a really big antenna on Earth

Attached: dsn-goldstone-night.jpg (800x779, 70K)

they had advanced tech back then that was top seekrit to btfo the russians and it wasn't a psyop
youtube.com/watch?v=DLZi9wI1C0M&feature=youtu.be&t=103

>practical effects are bett...

it did

It was during the daytime you moron

Drone bombers in ww2 are all the proof you should need of there capabilities of transmitting stuff in that era. Also it wasnt real time.

It's possible this event is just a big money laundering scheme to siphon taxpayers' money into someone's bank account. Is there even a point for NASA presently?

Every 16 year old who spends five fucking minutes getting into photography and understands how exposure works can tell you why your equipment is not going to pick up the sun and the stars at the same time.

got em

>film stock had to be shot and then chemically developed and transferred from a negative, a process that would take at least hours
>digital film tech only started to become a thing around the 80s and exploded in the 90s
Literally how the fuck is it possible that live television broadcasts, CCTV, etc. existed before the 80s? Only analogue film stock existed back then.

Attached: 1523822953906s.jpg (250x222, 7K)

DUDE HOW COULD THEY HAVE TELEVISION IN THE 1960S
SMARTPHONES WEREN'T INVENTED UNTIL 2007!!!!

Fucking cardboard and tinfoil lander bullshit looks like they could have punched though that shit with one finger

Are you actually mentally retarded? I get this is a bait thread and you're probably just trying to coax some lazy (You)s but jesus christ if you're actually that stupid there's no hope for this species.

Radio

That's not how that works sweaty, it's just light glare

Have your mum shine a high powered LED flash light in your eyes an tell me if you can still see your night light

It was a live broadcast with radio waves. It's not "Internet".

>would cost a fortune
How much do you think a Saturn V costs?

>what is relative intensity in relation to light capturing film equipment
duuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr

Your brother = based.
You = huge faggot that poops his pants everyday

Attached: image.png (528x486, 126K)

>first man out of lander
>someone filming it
major plot hole

The moon's surface is like only 20 feet across.

Someone explain this or I'm getting my tinned foil

Attached: 1562522991343.png (260x280, 159K)

>what is relative intensity in relation to light capturing film equipment

idk why you asking me tard

>how the fuck is it possible that live television broadcasts, CCTV, etc. existed before the 80s
You know, you could spend about 30 seconds googling if you wanted.

Stars are candles from far away.
Sun's a planet.

Take the real red pill

Get a job, stop smoking weed and have sex

Explain it if it's so easy. Back in the 50s & 60s you couldn't just digitally record something like you can today, you had to shoot on silver nitrate film. Even VHS magnetic tape was quite a development over traditional film which required an expensive 35mm projector to play.

still doesn't make sense though

Attached: a11TVCameraMESA.jpg (1000x700, 246K)

How them cracka can be on moon. Me no believing it. Me say-oh de white man never be on de moon bombaclat.

A camera doesn't need to be manned to record anything

You may have been able to, you're only looking at the outer layer of thermal insulation that was wrapped around the pressurized hull. Poking a hole in the thermal insulation wouldn't have been any real problem.

Attached: a0cef6c507eed22478556f20395ed7d6.jpg (3211x4115, 2.08M)

Delay from the moon is a few seconds.

Radio waves broadcast the image at the same time it's being recorded on film

So they sent a camera to the moon beforehand?One of those automatic 1960's video cameras they had back then

So they had the technology to capture images and send them via radio without any recourse to analogue film stock, yet it took like 4 more decades for digital film tech (i.e. capturing images without recourse to analogue film stock) to become a thing? Why was that the case?

>you couldn't just digitally record something like you can today, you had to shoot on silver nitrate film.
Videotape was developed in the 1950s.
Also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinescope
>a recording of a television program on motion picture film, directly through a lens focused on the screen of a video monitor. The process was pioneered during the 1940s for the preservation, re-broadcasting and sale of television programmes before the introduction of videotape

Here's the problem. Yes. We have all this advanced technology to go to the moon. But we also have just as much technology to fake the first landing with Hollywood effects if we truly wanted to. Questioning things is just another form of scientific scrutiny. Things must stand up to repeated questioning and study.

We certainly do have to acknowledge the "small possibility" that if some 1960s government team had enough funding, was desperate enough, or had ill-intentions to fool the public, they could certainly make an attempt at faking the landing. It was the cold war after all. The US had to look good no matter what, and had to beat the Soviets. Failure was not an option.

>Only limited radio bandwidth was available to transmit the video signal from the lunar landings, which needed to be multiplexed with other communication and telemetry channels beamed from the Lunar Module, back to Earth.[5] Therefore, Apollo 11's moonwalk video was transmitted from the Apollo TV camera in a monochrome SSTV format at 10 frames per second (fps) with 320 lines of resolution, progressively scanned.[6] These SSTV signals were received by radio telescopes at Parkes Observatory, the Goldstone tracking station, and Honeysuckle Creek tracking station.[7] The camera's video format was incompatible with existing NTSC, PAL, and SECAM broadcast television standards. It needed to be converted before it could be shown on broadcast television networks. This live conversion was crude, essentially using a video camera pointing at a high-quality 10-inch TV monitor.

>automatic
Don't confuse "automatic" for "controlled remotely". They did a lot of remote camera control during the Apollo missions, including the famous shots of the ascent stage launches from the rover in the later missions.

why is the moon dusty if their is no erosion or climate?

Attached: pepe-the-frog.jpg (1020x574, 48K)

I hope they left some tinfoil for Kubricks lunch

>Things must stand up to repeated questioning and study.
And they have. Consistently.

>... they could certainly make an attempt at faking the landing.
"Attempt" is the important word here. It was literally impossible to have faked the Apollo footage in the 1960s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube

You can watch the astronauts get into a massive fucking rocket and shoot up in the sky. Where the fuck else are they going to go?

lol

Here's a problem:
How does the entire world's governments including the Russians who hate the US agree to keep a fake moon landing secret all these years? Fucking retard.

it's literally covered in impact craters from meteors and shit

Maybe they landed it in a remote desert and got out and were driven to a studio?

Television broadcasting, using the electromagnetic spectrum (radio waves) and incorporating vacuum tube radio transmitters and receivers? Get that sci-fi shit outta here!

No.
No.
And...No.

Attached: image.jpg (720x690, 37K)

It's mylar not tin foil. You can buy some yourself and examine it's properties.

Attached: 71O1ImgJQvL._SL1000_.jpg (1000x1000, 146K)

Gee it's a good thing the Soviets never figured out we faked the moon landing if people can realize that's what happened by analyzing youtube videos.

youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

any argument that says
>it wasn't possible
basically says that the government didn't have a tech years ahead of the tech that was available to the public

it's a shitty ass argument and people who say that need to have SEX.

>people went to the moon with nothing but tinfoil blankets to protect them from the pressure of space

yeah right this is getting silly now

Why didn't they get any footage of them digging or kicking rocks around? You know, those things you can't do underwater.

Attached: 81236894156189.png (337x505, 261K)

>Where the fuck else are they going to go?
Your mama's ass

Space is gay. If you know any facts about space or the moon landing you are gay.

Attached: image.jpg (249x249, 16K)

or maybe they reversed the propaganda making people work harder

weird huh

>the american pig devils are on the moon
>mass produce 20 shuttles now
>arrgggh we are collapsing

Attached: ok5x4h0z3ib11.jpg (1080x1080, 215K)

the mylar is unpressurized external thermal insulation, see

youtube.com/watch?v=yeFDxsWBhaw

>digging or kicking rocks around
>You know, those things you can't do underwater.
wat

USSR won the space race

The russians didn't say shit because they're all under the kikes thumb to Jews unironically run this entire world

>Was it all a farce?

Yes, the tech back then was utter shit compared today and not one single county has bothered?

The cold war was fake. Only used to drum up nationalism

I like space and traps

so traps are gay now?

you need to think before you type pal

>being an astronaut is so hard only the best trained best of the best strongest fittest most gifted people can do ti
>a literal monkey can do it

youtube.com/watch?v=ppvlzyeIkog

The Soviets bothered, but they had less resources to throw at it and some manufacturing difficulties with cylindrical tanks and large combustion chambers that led to their super heavy rocket being less efficient and overly complex, among other things.

Attached: e50de0963be6f8e81e9cb6cb13aef45b.jpg (700x751, 130K)

While the US has certainly been to the moon, the first trip might have been faked. Since it was all a propaganda war with the USSR to see who could go there first, they sure as shit had a backup plan in case they weren't ready for the deadline, or something went wrong.

They were failing so fucking massively only a year before the launch, so it isn't very far-fetched to believe that they might have simply gone with plan B and used fake footage, and since they had already beaten the USSR, they didn't have to rush things to actually get there. I'd say it's a 50/50. But even if they managed to do it the first time, they sure as fuck had backup footage in case something went wrong.

>coming back alive and dying are the same thing

youtu.be/bVNTNeNMH8Q?t=95
1:35 astronaut throwing an object in a way that looks decidedly not underwater.

Coincidentally I just watched Apollo 13 last night and then wake up to this thread.
The news clips they play in the movie portray the public as not caring about 13 as much as 11. Once they got there the first time the shine wore off and now it's not worth the ridiculous cost to do it, space agencies are very clear that Mars is the goal now.

Attached: 1478325741654.jpg (500x471, 85K)

>when you had jets in 1940
>when you had intercontinental ballistic missiles in 1941
>when you split the atom and take out two cities

>waaaahhh we can't put a few hunks of metal on the close, giant ass moon

Retards.

this x 100,000,000,000

Attached: 193009main_lunarimpact_1600x1200.jpg (1083x813, 75K)

It was pre-recored.

How did the landing pod have enough fuel to reach orbit?

>Since it was all a propaganda war with the USSR to see who could go there first, they sure as shit had a backup plan in case they weren't ready for the deadline
No they didn't, because this wasn't a concern.

The US didn't understand the full extent of the Soviet's lunar program, but they knew it was a bit of a shambles. In some of the US astronauts biographies they talk about how they knew of satellite images of the Soviet's lunar rocket, and how they knew they just couldn't get the thing to work. The US knew that if Apollo 11 couldn't make a successful landing, they'd still be well and truly ahead of the Soviets. Apollo 12 was always under serious consideration as the first landing mission, because nobody really knew what Apollo 11 would be like.

I could maybe see this version of the conspiracy theory holding some validity if the US didn't know the state of the Soviet's N1 rocket, or if the N1 had made at least one successful launch. The fact of the matter is they knew they had *at least* a few Apollo landing attempts before the Soviets could catch up. And with 20-20 hindsight we know the N1 was completely dead in the water, such that the US could have waited as long as they wanted.

> I'd say it's a 50/50.
It's 100/0, we know it wasn't faked. Even the relatively little Apollo 11 footage has details that couldn't have been faked with 60s technology.

i mean obviously you're faking this but i can see the basis of someone actually being confused about it
it is hard to believe how broadcasting came before and was easier than recording, during the analogue era

It didn't. The ascent stage was separate to the descent stage, and it had its own fuel reservoir.

You weren't there. How do you know it's really true?

No they used fuel cells.

The moon is unironically hollow. It is the only way any of the physics makes sense.

All the moon landing has taught me is that everyone on the internet is an expert on "Van Halen" radiation.

Just go the fuck back to reddìt with your lame ass dad jokes.

Are you?

The real fuckin question here is why did the moon look so fucking big last night? I've never seen it so big. Is this shit gonna crash into us tomorrow or something?

looks like someone needs a nap

Here's the thing: People who say shit like that do not spend more than a minute doing research.

Their knee jerk reaction is to see something, make up an explanation for it, and commit to it. They have no idea how little they know about anything which gives them both confidence and conviction about saying their pants-on-head-retarded opinions.

>ITT: Teaching /pol/ third grade science
Lol.

OBSESSED REDDITOR

Yes user, prepare to loot as many moonrocks as possible, those will be the new currency.

You mean the ascent module? The moon has 1/6th Earth gravity and no atmosphere so you can get into orbit with relative ease compared to Earth.

The ascent module had 2,220m/s delta-v, and it took a bit over 2,000m/s to return to the command module's parking orbit at about 60x62mi.

youtu.be/XlGis35Epvs?t=170

Attached: AAGJvD1.jpg (2239x2725, 1.2M)

>moon landing in the 60s was real guys
>i swear

Attached: 5EA038D8-2ACF-4B6A-8002-2E3B10D2FC2A.jpg (715x429, 40K)

a bit under*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

The time lag to the moon was around 2 seconds at the most, pretty typical even for today's satellite routing for international live broadcasts.

Their primary power source was hydrogen fuel cells.
On top of being more efficient, their "waste" is pure water, which provided the astronauts with drinking water and was also used to eject heat via sublimation (venting basically) while on the lunar surface.

>strap a few humans to a giant tube of metal full of highly explosive fuel
>Start that tube and guide it towards the moon
>Detach a module that lands on the moon and takes off again.
>Head back to the earth and recover the humans safely

Meanwhile, 50 years later, retards are baffled that we could send video waves towards the earth.

>All experts agree on the fact that we went there, even Russians do
>A bunch of retards with no arguments believe we didn't.

You choose to believe the retards, it does make you anticonformist, congratulations, it also makes you a retard, retard.

pretty sure it was fake. motherfuckers can barely even livestream out on the streets, on twitch right now

Oh the irony

>You can watch the astronauts get into a massive fucking rocket and shoot up in the sky. Where the fuck else are they going to go?
Giant arc into the sky.
Empty top capsule lands so far away nobody would see it land.
High altitude plane or balloon later takes astronauts up in “return” capsule, drops capsule from high altitude so decent can later be filmed.

Phones don't use directional antennas.

Why do you retards always go muh hoax at everything?
>reee holocaust was a lie
>reee moon landing was fake!
>reee JFK wasn't actually asssasinated
Like please shut the fuck up with your retarded opinions.

Based

Would it be that big of a problem for us to go back? Why not just send another moon mission and just take some modern video of the flag and the stuff we left there? It would sure put some questions to rest. Maybe the Jews could do it when they finally get that mission ready to dump the plaque about muh six million next time. Hell, maybe Musk could do it next time he feels the urge to launch a Firebird into orbit or some shit.

Logically arguing a point to those who have arrived at their belief in a non-scientific manner is absolutely impossible.

There was a major grain sale to the Soviet Union during the Space program that might have been an unofficial bribe.
>The great grain robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million tons of United States grain (mainly wheat and corn) by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which resulted in higher grain prices in the United States.
It’s claimed the US didn’t know about the grain shortage in the Soviet Union, but I’ve read some of the grain got resold by the Soviets, at a very high orofit margin, so it could vave acted as a bribe.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_grain_robbery

>thinking this is real

and the moon landing deniers are the retards??????

Attached: nasa2.webm (320x240, 2.29M)

it doesn't seem realistic if you don't post it with sound
youtube.com/watch?v=qHK4YjgDV9s

So what would you expect it to look like? What exactly makes you think it's not real?

jet fuel doesnt melt steel beams

>hur the camera follows the ship, there must be a cameraman
this is how he'll respond

but who was phone???

>REEEE STOP GOING AGAINST WHAT EVERYONE BELIEVES!
Good goy

It's also pretty interesting how the moon conspiracy is super huge but nobody is spreading any conspiracy shit about Yuri Gagarin.... hmmmmmmmmmm..... I wonder why...........

Simply doesn't pass the smell test. Looks like a cheap model from a 60's B movie

nah apparently they were remote controlling it 260,000 miles away from houston lol

also here's richard nixon talking to the astronauts on a LANDline telephone

youtube.com/watch?v=ieGKIh3koAI

1990's Power Rangers show did it better

broadcast might be fake, but there is actually shit left on the moon

Ever consider that our conflict with the Soviets might've been pure theater. Would it really shock you to learn that the world leaders conspire to create fake wars to keep the working class in a constant state of fear and control?

i wish that was literal. i wish Buzz Aldrin took a shit on the moon.

show me telescopic proof

before you show me a grainy low res photo remember I can see anywhere in the world in high res

then they are doing a bad job at it. most the wests military conflicts today are some bumfuck desert countrys. most people are pretty apathetic and fed up when it comes to that kind of stuff. the only thing we seem to get out of it is muh terrorism

You expect them to have any kind of logical argument or evidence? It's the lamest conspiracy because it's 100% based on "I feel/think it's not true" or fragments of interviews that in their mind seem suspicious. It's laughable in fact I don't think anyone here believes it honestly. I've seen enough idiots here who just spam shit and post bait for nothing more than replies.

buy yourself a tour of an observatory that includes telescope viewing and stop pestering everyone with your faggotry.

prove it

unless u have access to the hubble, theres no reason youd be able to see it from earth retard

Broadcast wasn't fake. Unless the audio was faked too but that qould require participation from the astronauts so no. Besides even faking the footage would result in the same problems as with faking the entire thing: impossibility of keeping it secret. Also the way moon dust reacts on the footage is completely impossible to duplicate even today.

oh so no-one has bothered getting a pic from one of humanity's greatest accomplishment

mu..muh mirrors

u stupid

Attached: 1557697979448.jpg (624x722, 184K)

Based user owning the redditor.

yeah you're a fag
nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

Attached: 1435762714143.jpg (640x960, 163K)

so we just have to trust NASA?

Attached: 1537658837482.jpg (2352x3081, 2.15M)

I think there's several pictures of the event.

Attached: 1200px-Buzz_salutes_the_U.S._Flag.jpg (1200x1212, 445K)

they film the space walks in a pool. the moon landing was a set.

Attached: 1554778164480.gif (622x498, 2.37M)

[Pretending you're a believer:]
It doesn't work like that in vacuum (it's like retards who heard about Van Allen belts and just pretend to be experts in radiation and how it works so they say it's impenetrable) and you wouldn't want to have a hard landing in the LEM. But the way the dust behaves when astronauts walk would be impossible to recreate.

I could put arrows on a black and white photo of your greasy face and say it was the moon landings

Americans and Russians had space race and nuke arsenals and living in the future in the 60s. Also China was a ass backward shit hole with no direction. How the fuck did they advance so much that all of my computer parts has had a fuckinh Chinese handle it at some point before arriving to my house and China is remaking silk roads and becoming a superpower of this earth? Fuck

does that mean d-day was faked as well?

no show me a telescopic photo, shit you could see a cabin in the middle of nowhere if you wanted to right now

no moon landing though, even on google view of the moon its good quality then with low quality of the "landing site"

We have some good space threads here on Yea Forums from time to time and after The Right Stuff is released next year we may see more but seriously moon hoax is by far the lamest conspiracy theory. It's something that's infinitely more boring than the real achievement it's a shame to waste time discussing it.

the lander is large and aspherical.
think of a security camera mounted on your garage, pointed at your front door.

>asks for pics
>gets pics
>"no!"
OK, Isildur, go make a big deal of this utter nothing burger in the utmost American fashion.

space is fake faggots deal with it

Attached: 1560482544507.webm (1280x720, 2.92M)

Moon is fake, landing there was real.

Adulthood is realization that the Moon and the landing was real and the hoaxters are fake.

no I asked for a satellite pic

you gave me a studio photo shoot and a picture with arrows because you cant make anything out

kinda sad

Look up the Van Allen belt. The moon landing didn’t happen and likely could still not happen.

Are you trying to say “sweetie” or “sweaty”? I get that there both condescending but they’re contextually different. I just need some clarification, thanks.

Oh, I thought there are little men inside all cameras. There aren't? Wee. Santa Claus isn't real either?
Fuck this shit with all these red pills.

>no, I moved the goalpost after being provided with proof
>this fake (because I said so) pic has arrows (ok?)
>imma bask in my retardation with a feeling of self worth, now
do you have some knowledge in image editing? perhaps you can point out an unequivocal thing about the pic that makes it fake?

Because we have low orbit satelites put there in the last 5 years to take photos of the earth. And planes did it before that. You cant see much on the moon because a) we are far away and 2) its a giant light source that overwhelms any telescope looking at it. We actually have a far easier time looking at the dark side of the moon.

>why aren't pictures of things in space hundreds of thousands of miles away not crystal clear ultra 4k™quality pics that I can browse on pinterest from my phone

You're a fag. You say retarded shit and then when presented with evidence that you're retarded you act like an even bigger fag.

Please please reply and continue posting.

Attached: 1458113580498.jpg (1053x1070, 298K)

radiation is a meme

there are people who still live in Chernobyl since birth and they are 90

not only are they are 90 they don't have any modern conveniences

shit theres animals dancing around the reactors

Kek wants us to buy mylar.

popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon/

Just admit you don't know and stop being sheep

Aliens, man. They decided we were advancing too rapidly.

oh, what's that? it looked like you weren't answering my simple question at all

that user completely destroyed you

no, you don't have an argument and instead got salty

"that user" isn't really subtle

Attached: 1474917642747.jpg (275x275, 25K)

Radiation always has a source and diminishes drastically with distance, also shielding is a thing, only a few dozen people in chernobyl got a lethal dose

you are spewing cope posts now

this guy knows what's up.

Attached: 1557267801776.png (755x743, 859K)

The whole "moon landing hoax" thing comes from flat earthers attempting to discredit the moon landing because Neil Armstrong and NASA didn't say the Earth was flat and took pics of the Earth (that isn't flat). In other words, it's dumb as fuck to believe but I can't stop idiots from believing stupid shit, even though all the bullshit has been debunked time and time again over decades. Ultimately, people will believe in dragons and fairies if that's what they want to believe.

there are pics, but u dont believe it because ur paranoid as fuck

ya nah. your anti-intellectualism breitbart fox news faggotry might work on you, but not for me sorry bro.

>Van Allen Belt
>a radioactive belt (actually two belts) discovered by Explorer 1 in 1958
>discovered to be potentially dangerous without protection from the spacecraft the calculations showed that passing through them doesn't threaten the astronauts' safety, the radiation they were exposed to wasn't abnormal

Ok what now?

>wake up sheeple

Oh come on you can do better than that.
Here, have another try.

Attached: 1428955842638.gif (480x292, 3.48M)

Attached: apollo17-left-670.jpg (670x322, 160K)

>that user

Attached: CD1.jpg (362x420, 35K)

I think those people if they exist are just incredibly boring. Usually conspiracies make things more interesting this is just a waste of time and the best proof they have it literally "look at that smudge on the helmet it looks like something" and "look those serious astronauts weren't laughing and yelling here as I totally would" They're so pathetic I'm not sorry to see them get their ass kicked by elderly men.

honestly, shit like the black knight satellite or even ancient civilization in Antarctica is fascinating and makes for a good fanfic read if nothing else. This is just depressingly dumb.

that user....you mean you?

black knight satellite is literally just a blanket

looks like someone's getting cozy up there

Something like that. Trash they threw out. It shows how conspiracies are made because the famous black knight photo is only one of the set and the next ones show it from different angles so the conspiracy is built around people not seeing the other photos. Or listening to the recording that confirms them.

soviets were controlled opposition

I forget where I read the breakdown about this but I found a somewhat amusing article about how faking the moon landing with special effects in the 60s would have been even more unlikely/difficult than actually sending people to the moon. Our rocket technology was just better than our video editing back then.

Even ignoring the impossibility of forcing all the people not to say anything for their entire lives the most difficult thing would be to fake the physics of the surroundings. There was a recreation made for the first landing by one of the tv studios so we can compare how they look.

It was shot in a studio in front of a live audience.

>Moon is fake
Not true, Buzz Aldrin confirmed the moon does exist on da Ali G show years ago

>It would sure put some questions to rest.
Flat earthers and other tinfoil hat retards would claim it's CGI and get back to their usual business of creating theories about lunar eclipses being caused by an invisible second moon.

Live TV was nothing new. In fact, when TV-was invented, all of the shows were aired live.

>can't spell "Batteries"
>expects anyone to accept his "expert" opinion

Had the USA faked it, Soviets would have made it known. It would have been an enormous victory for them.

but what about the Van Halen belt???

too hot 4 moon landing

What did nasa mean by this?

Attached: m1.png (1033x1170, 1.32M)

No funding for the required technology

it means that although smartphones and shit exist, technology for space travel has not only remained stagnant but also regressed.

So what is National Aeronautics and Space Administration getting funds for?

By that you mean our metals, eletronics and our understanding of rockets got worse over time? As well as computing power?

robots to things
low earth orbit things
climate things (being cut by asshole in chief)

no because they would be doing a bad job as controlled opposition then
>muh cold """war""

putting shit in orbit. That's it. Takes a lot of effort to land on the moon and then launch off of it...that's the technology he's talking about.

saturn launchers were discontinued, we can't be arsed to figure out how they worked

manned missions are considered too expensive relative to benefit, they are focusing on unmanned

Pretty sure there was delay. They can't even perfectly sync a broadcast from NY to Istanbul half the time.

"Regressed" here mean NASA can no longer build the 60's spacecrafts for moon travel due to lost blueprints and specialized parts which can't be manufactured today. Technically they can be made but it'll cost a lot to rebuild all the machines.
Of course you can design completely brand new delivery rocket and spacecraft but that will cost even more.

It means we don't have any functional moon rockets right now. We can't just build a Saturn V in 2019, so much the technology used (materials, machining techniques, safety standards, etc) is defunct. We have to design, construct, test, etc, a whole new set of vehicles to do the task. This was even kinda true at the time of the Apollo missions, the Saturn V was never going to be mass produced, if they wanted to do anything serious following the initial 60s/70s landings they'd eventually have to put the work into a new set of vehicles.

What's more is that the mission profiles have changed. We don't want to do "Apollo" missions any more, we want to do longer-duration missions with more permanent bases, orbiting lunar stations for refueling, blah blah. This all requires a lot of custom work to be happening in rather specific sequences, it's not something you just pull "tech" off the shelf for.

>DOMBLALD DRGRUMP IB BOT MAH BREGIZIND
>DRUHH DU ORGANJ MADN IB BAD

The rockets, launchers and landers they used don't exist anymore or aren't usable anymore and they couldn't get the funding to build modern ones because there's no reason to go back to the moon without any more important research or cold war dick waving to do.

Deranged.

>US gets to the moon using science, capital, and good ol american elbow grease
>but the elite are so preoccupied with dumbing down Americans to become brainless consumers and dismantling the education system that the modern American doesn't even know that radio waves have existed since forever, or that it's always been able to modulate data on them

Attached: 1563067136145.jpg (1200x675, 138K)

Wrong. All space launches done by the government are air force. Nasa controlls shit once it is in orbit but hasnt launched any thing in 10 years.

What if the tinfoil hat people are the controlled opposition? Having a useful idiot you can feed lies to seems like a great way to poison any conversation. people asking questions about some of the shady stuff the government is/was involved in will get discredited by the screeching of moonhoaxers, flat earthers and climate change deniers

this is very true also. tinfoilers like flat earthers make it impossible to discuss anything about real conspiracies like the moon landing cover up or hollow earth

>black president bombs a school full of children
where have we seen this before?

Yeah no shit it's not like the US pumped billions of dollars and manpower to win the space race

Radio can't transmit images though

How come they never went back to the moon then and recorded more footage? How come USSR never went up to record footage? How come China haven't gone to the moon? How come no one has ever returned?

60s had
>Kennedy assassination
>Moon landing
>The Beetles
>Woodstock
>Vietnam
Has any other decade been so interesting? 90s had the fall of the USSR and 00s had 9/11, but not much else. 10s has had absolutely nothing.

Everyone knows they built these massive rockets, and thousands of people watched it launch in person, with their own eyes.
Where the fuck else were they going if not the moon?

Attached: saturnv2.jpg (556x363, 32K)

cringe

Attached: 1541264741377.jpg (1920x1552, 586K)

I see another astronaut filming. What's the conspiracy?

I read in a Moon landing book that lunar dust is flour-like, sticks to any surface and is very difficult to eliminate, and contains glass particles resulting from meteor impacts and lack of erosion, a risk for the health of astronauts and maybe pioneers

Attached: IMG_-mpqjq.jpg (877x587, 127K)

Dust doesn't billow in a vaccuum. They shut off the engines a second before landing and dropped the rest of the way.

That's because it was filmed on a body with no air and a close horizon. If it was faked it would look more natural.

Space is dusty.

>hurr muh radio waves
Nigger, why do I get worse ping with a wired internet connection than your "live radio tv broadcast"?

That's a cool picture, I've never seen that before. Thanks.

What would happen if he jumped, would he float off into space?

Escape velocity bud

He would escape the moon?

thats how buzz aldrin got back to earth, they forgot to take him in the pod.

>The smell test
What a scientist you are.

He'd fall back down. You need to move 1.6 km/s to escape the Moon's gravity.

How many millions of dollars did you spend on your connection?

>soviets beating america to every milestone in the space race
>except for the biggest one of all
What went wrong?

Might as well jump. Go ahead and jump.

It's astonishing to me that these nutjobs seems to think that the moon lander was insulated solely by tin foil (mylar), when in reality it was a ton of asbestos.

Attached: grissommemorial_gt301.jpg (480x431, 62K)

I've always assumed conspiracies are fed by governments. They are far too convenient ways of hiding actual secrets if they leak out.

Kek this. Zoomers literally can’t seem to comprehend technology prior to smartphones. Very concerning.

so why haven't they gone to the moon again, aliens or something? or is it just because there's nothing up there

Disneyland.

>in fucking realtime
Well take into account stream delay

The easier things become, the harder it is for people to imagine how to do things the hard way.

Here is a kino Yea Forums related proof it's all about cameras
youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

They went back five times

The funny part is that broadcasting from the moon in 1969 wasn’t even cutting edge technology for the most part. The footage people saw at home was also incredibly blurry. Conspiracy theorists act like it was wizardry.

I swear to god so many people here don’t know that we had multiple other Apollo missions after 11.

It's hilarious how people think NASA exists to launder money when the military budget is 800 times larger.

That's the root for all conspiracies, the idea of that if I can't figure out how something was done, it must have been faked or aliens or something.

It's somewhat amusing to follow the news about the rebuilding of Notre Dame, as people have flat out said, they can't build it the same ways is was originally done, as we have lost quite a bit of knowledge on how things were done back in the day.

Or the fact that two prior missions went to the moon but didn't land. From mercury to gemini to apollo, that's 9 years working to achieve one thing and there are people who thinks it needs to be faked. Though I realize these are mostly done for you's.

neither of those technologies are necessary for getting to the moon

You know how televisions used to have antennae on them? TV broadcasts were done through electromagnetic radio waves. As in they can be done remotely with no need for film or other physical storage media.

Do moon landing deniers also deny all the space missions? I know flat earthers do since they believe God doesn't let anything leave the Earth.

>Bravo Kubrick
that hack was notorious for not paying attention to the little details, like a less-talented Ed Wood

that was a youtube video from some canadian video editor/camera man and he claims there is no way they could have faked the footage back then

that's why they had to launch from Panama

Ah yes, the intellectual retard. The thinking man's brainlet

idahoptv.org/sciencetrek/topics/television/facts.cfm

bump

you're brother is a fucking idiot

>Things must stand up to repeated questioning and study.
you know we went like 7 times at least right?

bleh

kys
space is the only way we will survive as a species

now thats dumb as fuck. why would you "kick" stuff on space, wouldnt the suit break, wouldnt you subject it to unpredictable forces? this single piece of shit video tells its all a lie, no sicentist would do this.

>no sicentist would do this.
they weren't scientists, they were air force pilots

>the US pumped billions of MP
The average state of this boards IQ!

>falling for obvious bait

>the US "should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
>before this decade is out
>speech made in 1961 the very year Gagarin was the first man in space
isn't that a pretty ambitious deadline when today we know that a lot of deadlines for engineering promises are mostly missed?
isn't it a coincidence that the moon landing took place in the last possible year to keep JFK's announcement?

>This live conversion was crude, essentially using a video camera pointing at a high-quality 10-inch TV monitor.
lol Jesus Christ

>isn't it a coincidence
No, nothing about it was a coincidence. Read up on the subject and you'll see how it was achieved.

>all live television events in the 60s were fake

No because they spent every single year between that speech and the moon landing taking every single small step necessary to get there.