My Yea Forumstards, what is the one and only, defining fact that proves without a shadow of doubt...

or they were "in on it" to give it credibility and to help siphon funding for something else due to a sense of urgency providing competition and greater interest

>humans aren't capable of hiding anything
>humans aren't capable
>humans
so aliens?

theres video and pics of it. proof right there

there is no evidence of intelligent life in the universe. if anyone is hiding anything it's god.

humans like this guy went to the moon

Attached: 1561548220324.webm (640x640, 566K)

No need for any laser experiments just the amount of people that would have to lie, eventually someone would say the truth

There are pictures of it,and video.

The fact that they were able to get there and back in 1969 but my iPhone runs out of battery after watching 15 minutes of video in 2019.

this

Here are some legit images of the moon

>My Yea Forumstards, what is the one and only, defining fact that proves without a shadow of doubt, that men went to the moon?

the fact that we have laser range inferometer data produced by the retroreflectors placed up there, which instantly after each of the moon landings increased the amount of reflected light from laser experiments, and continues to do so to this day.

Attached: Apollo14Reflectors.jpg (897x427, 86K)

So I'm stuck because there are shots taken of the moon, from the surface by the astronauts, with the lunar lander in them. Then there are shots of the same spot with no lander in them. So I want to believe it's fake, but then we have the audio recording of Aldrin(?) saying "we see them and they see us, they are on the rim of the crater", but he swapped over to a medical channel that regular people couldn't listen to. Ham radio operators heard it and recorded it.

Attached: 1548059149950m.jpg (1024x1001, 74K)

>or they were "in on it"

so, you're saying that the capitalist west and the communist Warsaw Pack, the self-proclaimed ideological enemies who were locked in a cold war spending trillions in military buildup, and who were at the time locked in a proxy war in east asia, were in fact, secretly "in on it" working together?

I think that would be accurate to describe as "utterly implausible fantasy"

I believe this as well.

I kind of lean to the idea that we did in fact go to the moon, but what was broadcast to the world was a staged show. They couldn't show what was really up there because they would have to explain all the massive structures and how the surface is multicolored from all of the pulverized glass.

Their literally the best at rocket technology at the moment

Actually the way the Russians were behaving throughout the cold war i wouldn't doubt they started and fed the moon hoax conspiracy.
For example we didn't know where Hitler was. We kinda knew he killed himself from intelligence but the CIA was still following up on leads of sightings in Argentina.
The Russians got the body. They were digging him up and reburying him for decades before they finally cremated him.
But they also accused the allies of lying about his death and said they were sheltering him. Mistrust of government is deadly to democracy so it's a tactic they used any chance they got.
Western eyes only saw Hitler's remains in 2018 (a skull is all that's left) because they let researchers have access to it in Moscow. That's how long they kept it from us.

does it really make more sense that the US would spend billions just to fake the moon landing?

we had the tech to actually do it back then so why is it so hard to believe that it happened?

finally if a nation or corporation like, say, china were to take photos of the moon landing site would you keep calling those fake? what would it take to prove that the moon landing actually happened. One of the astronauts even got so tired of people being retarded that he punched some jackass in the face for saying it was fake.

Their rocketry was so advanced when Russian rocket scientists first collaborated with NASA and showed them what they did we didn't believe them. They did what was thought to be impossible. They didn't have a lot of money, and they compensated with some pretty genius work arounds. There's a whole documentary on it.
They landed on the moon, Mars and Venus long before Americans did.

>showed them what they did we didn't believe them
like what?

Get an android

you just can't see it from earth because?

interesting theory, and it's also without legit proof like my own opinion

Best proof would be to send someone there to check.

cell phones are a weird permutation of what the handheld computer is supposed to be. The sooner we stop considering them phones at all the better off we'll be.

They manually placed a laser reflector ("mirror")
in an optimal position, on the moon:
and radar like techniques are still being used to monitolr the gradual rate of change of position of the moon relative to the Earth. Also, while the Astronauts were placing the reflector:
they left boot prints in the lunar dust, which will (probably) still be there at the end of this century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Pic related = laser reflector with visible boot prints
attribution = By NASA - NASA Apollo Archive hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5952.jpg, Public Domain, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=719521

Attached: Apollo 11 Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment .jpg (800x808, 226K)

well im not going

>NASA after years of nagging and idiocy decides to send a mission "Verum I" to the moon to photograph the old Apollo landing sites.
>broadcast in 8k and VR livestream an astronaut hops around the original rover and lander legs.
>hours later
>"Is fake u can tell becus the light wuz not how it wsu on coll of doody"

Where else do you think they went?

Attached: 38660.jpg (800x663, 147K)

I'm not a rocket scientist and I'm paraphrasing the documentary, I'll get the details wrong, but good enough for you to know there was something to it.
but something about how the fuel system has an oxidizer and a combustible that must be kept separate, and if they meet at the wrong time the rocket explodes.
The Russians found it a lot cheaper and way more fuel efficient if they met in a single chamber inside the rocket which should make it explode. And they did blow up a lot of rockets in the process. But they eventually got the balance and systems right to be stable.
So when they showed NASA their blue prints NASA took one look and said "you can't fucking do this, the rocket will explore" to which the Russians were like "oh yes you can".
Pretty sure NASA uses that system now. I'll just try and find the documentary for you. But the point is they made an absolute rocketry no-no work fantastically which greatly reduced cost.

Attached: 1244767531.jpg (1514x1624, 189K)

Attached: 1526499121.jpg (908x1586, 137K)

More than that you are anything other than a master baiter.

I got one even better for ya. Anyone with a couple hundred dollars can buy a decent telescope off Amazon and can see the moon landing area and the debris with their own eye. I've seen it myself on clear nights. I just don't get how people can honestly claim we never landed when the evidence is literally right there for us to see.

Found it. It's called cosmodrome. It was on Netflix, not sure if it or not anymore.
But they reached out to US rocket scientist in the 90s, and it was found soviet rockets in the 60s were better than modern US rockets from the 90s.

Because your IPhone is way more powerful than the onboard computer of Apollo 11. It's probably faster than all of NASA's computers combined at that time so it's natural for it to consume more energy

they replaced it with a docudrama on how the moon landings were only possible with the gay black lesbians that hand built the rockets in their traditional african garb while holding vietnamese orphans in their hands

i bet the Apollo 11 STILL worked better as a phone though

This post you made. It's hilarious.

>Probably
No, it is faster. Much faster. We've come a ways

Did you take some images from your observation of the moon?

> Anyone with a couple hundred dollars can buy a decent telescope off Amazon and can see the moon landing area and the debris with their own eye. I've seen it myself on clear nights.

no you havent.

there is no optical telescope on earth which has the resolution capable of resolving the lander sites in sufficient detail to see manmade objects just a few metres across.

the LRO orbiter, 20KM above the moon can. not even the GTC in the Canary Islands can from earth.

Attached: 3213096854.jpg (1514x1624, 189K)

Actually, you can't buy anything that can show you the landing sites from Earth due to the required angular resolution.

Apollo uses a laser range finder with the help of a 3.5m mirror telescope.

There are reclector plates on the moon landing site. Scientists shine lazers at the plates to measure distance. Mythbusters did a whole thing about it.

but mythbusters was never actually filmed. It was just a ploy by the american government rendered in unity.

Uhmm, what are your valuable opinions on Van Allen radiation belt?

that is is grossly overexaggerated by most people who have no idea either the flight plan used by the Apollo missions to avoid the peak intensity field, not the duration which they were passing through:

Attached: apollodose.gif (500x380, 23K)

It's a problem for space travel, but if you think it makes it impossible you don't understand exposure. We can take some radiation with no Ill effects. The exposure of astronaughts travelling through the belt was well below international standards of safe exposure limits. A lot of this has to do with time actually spent exposed to radiation during moon missions, which is too short to have any real dangerous levels of exposure.

Attached: electronbelt.gif (930x680, 137K)

Oh and flight path. They did take into account varying exposure levels at different points and tried to traverse them.

Retroreflectors