that would be the only possible answer that makes sense. People in this thread trying to defend apollo is hilarious. So easy to understand that they were fake.
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took off from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.
The Nazis won World War II and the "Cold War" was a farce.
The German scientists working for the Soviet Union weren't going to rat out the German scientists working for the United States. They collaborated on their research projects.
This is actually covered in one of the documentaries. According to one woman whose father worked at NASA, she said that above the political theater of the cold war, that russian and US technocrats were close friends. The cold war was largely a scare/fear tactic to keep people in line and prevent the outbreak of another global conflict. Above the theater, the world has been controlled by the same people on both sides.
We’re going to need more evidence than a second hand anecdote that US and USSR were secretly buddies the whole time during the Cold War.
Even if they were buddies then, the USSR doesn’t exist anymore and the current govt is not friendly to US/Deep State interests in the slightest. Why wouldn’t Putin or any post USSR president spill the goods?
We’re going to need more evidence than a second hand anecdote that US and USSR were secretly buddies the whole time during the Cold War.
Tell me you know nothing about Operation Paperclip without telling me you know nothing about Operation Paperclip, let alone anything about what the Russians were doing.
Even NASA admits many Nazi scientists joined the Russian space program to those who actually are willing to read-
Much has been written in the West on the history of the Soviet space program but few Westerners have read direct first-hand accounts of the men and women who were behind the many Russian accomplishments in exploring space. The memoirs of Academician Boris Chertok, translated from the original Russian, fills that gap. In these writings, spread over four volumes, Chertok not only describes and reflects upon his experiences, but he also elicits and extracts profound insights from an epic story about a society's quest to explore the cosmos.
From the introduction to the PDF of Boris Chertok's translated book linked in the article above. (Read the parts in bold if you skip the rest.) -
Chertok’s name first appeared in print in the newspaper Izvestiya in an article commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the launch of Sputnik in 1987. In a
wide-ranging interview on the creation of Sputnik, Chertok spoke with the utmost respect for his former boss, the late Korolev. He also eloquently balanced love for his country with criticisms of the widespread inertia and inefficiency that characterized late-period Soviet society.
His first written works in the glasnost’ period, published in early 1988 in the Air Force journal Aviatsiya i kosmonavtika (Aviation and Cosmonautics), underlined Korolev’s central role in the foundation and growth of the Soviet space program.
By this time, it was as if all the patched up straps that held together a stagnant empire were falling apart one by one; even as Russia was in the midst of one of its most historic transformations, the floodgates of free expression were transforming the country’s own history. People like Chertok were now free to speak about their experiences with candor.
Readers could now learn about episodes such as Korolev’s brutal incarceration in the late 1930s, the dramatic story behind the fatal space mission of Soyuz-1 in 1967, and details of the failed and abandoned Moon project in the 1960s.
Chertok himself shed light on a missing piece of history in a series of five articles published in Izvestiya in early 1992 on the German contribution to the foundation of the Soviet missile program after World War II.
And then read this next excerpt from the introduction-
Chertok’s descriptive powers are particularly evident in describing the chaotic
nature of the Soviet mission to recover and collect rocketry equipment in Germany after World War II.
Interspersed with his contemporary diary entries, his language conveys the combination of joy, confusion, and often anti-climax that the end of the war presaged for Soviet representatives in Germany.
In one breath, Chertok and his team are looking for hidden caches of German matériel in an underground mine, while in another they are face to face with the deadly consequences of a soldier who had raped a young German woman (Volume I, Chapter 21). There are many such seemingly incongruous anecdotes during Chertok’s time in Germany, from the experience of visiting the Nazi slave labor camp at Dora soon after liberation in 1945,to the deportation of hundreds of German scientists to the USSR in 1946.
Read that again.
If you can't admit you have much to learn after reading that, I don't know what more I can write.
Also, to your point about the Russian government not spilling the beans, maybe you should go directly to the source instead of relying on mainstream media to tell you the truth.
Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia's national space agency, Roscosmos, describes a YouTube video clip he posted to Twitter in 2018-
Отвечаю на вопросы президента Молдавии: были ли американцы на Луне, зачем у @roscosmos
есть истребители и трамваи и как российская космонавтика поможет молдавскому винограду?
In English-
I answer the questions of the President of Moldova: were there Americans on the moon, why @roscosmos has fighter jets and trams, and how will Russian cosmonautics help Moldovan grapes?
Here's an archived Time magazine article describing this interview (which they've since pulled offline)-
Russian Space Agency Official Jokingly Pledges to Verify American Moon Landings
Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.
Sure they went to the Moon with a 40 kbyte computer. Why not? They had elaborate manual procedures to make it work, however. When the X-20 program (DynaSoar) was active, the Boeing company figured out a way for the astronaut to manually pilot the vehicle all the way from orbit to a ground landing. We were able to do impressive things back in the days of slide rules.
The Moon Buggy was not for funsies. It was to get them farther from the landing site for samples and observations.
Why would there be a crater when the dust layer was thin, backed by rock, and the exhaust plume had expanded like a huge bubble? (That's what they do in vacuum: take a sharp outward turn past the exhaust cone.) That like expecting a helicopter to produce a sandstorm whenever it landed on arid ground.
13 feet on the moon would be 2+ feet on the Earth. Try that. Then try it again wearing 175 pounds of Moon Suit. With the bending of your limbs constrained by the fabric and joints. (We are working up to the realization that you don't know what you are talking about.)
The Moon is about 350,000 km from the Earth. The light speed delay is essentially 1 second. System delays would make it longer. Do you have any scientific reference that substantiates a claim that the delay was shorter?
Whether you see stars or not depends on how dark adapted you are and whether you have been gazing into the star field for some time, or glance at it from a lighted environment.
Not all the data is destroyed. Mostly what happened is that we still have the data, but it is on storage media for which we no longer have readout systems. That is a stupid oopsie, but not a deliberate plot. And what are we missing that you would be so concerned about?
We didn't "destroy" the technology to go to the Moon. We just threw it aside and let it rot, for want of continuing to go there. It takes a huge effort in time and money to make and launch an Apollo mission. We couldn't afford to keep it up. (Vietnam War and all that.) You can see it in museums. We also have lost the knowledge of how to build 16-inch naval cannon, for the same reason. Elon Musk is revving up a new approach. (Don't hold your breath for the Space Launch System. It is NASA's equivalent to building a pyramid.)
The Apollo 7 mission never left low Earth orbit because it was not meant to. It was an early test of the system.
The Van Allen belts did not destroy any computers. Not even for the lunar probe missions. Not even the electronics on Explorer I which was the satellite that detected them. Nobody was killed by the Van Allen belts. It makes a difference whether you are passing through at close to 10 km/sec or hanging out for a long time. (By the way, you shield a computer by putting it in a shielding box, not by making the entire spacecraft a shield.)
If all the other thousand pieces of evidence are as flimsy as these, you would not be able to sit on it without it collapsing.
Why did Michael Collins say he couldn't see any stars in space, clown? All while Neil armstrong looked like he wanted to blow his head off after supposedly achieving the greatest accomplishment in human history.
Did you even read what I said? There I am in the Apollo capsule, with the lights on, trying to look through a porthole that is reflecting the light. Am I going to see stars? Or there I am on the lunar surface in the glare of sunlight off the regolith, incapable of getting dark adapted. Am I going to see stars? A camera won't, which is why they were not photographed that way.
Different astronauts had different circumstances and different dark adaptation thresholds. I can go outside my house at night on a clear sky and not see many stars, due to the light pollution from my downtown area. I know they are there, but my eyes are getting old.
Because the spacecraft has bright interior lights. Hop into your car at night, turn all the interior lights on, then tell me how well you can see the stars without rolling the windows down.
Same thing for why stars don’t appear in the background of photos from the moon. The brightness of the light reflected by lunar rocks/soil washes out the starlight, which is too dim to creat enough contrast. That and the cameras they brought weren’t telescopes, so they weren’t designed to picture stars. Again, try taking photos of the stars with an old hand held camera and see how well they show up.
Lol, that was my point..
I lost all desire to engage with this moon landing BS , after I saw a giy trying to compare a leaf blower here on earth, to rocket exhaust on the moon.
Soooo.... after that I just gave up trying to explain aerodynamics and propulsión to people who don't want to learn real science.
It's been my hypothesis that they went to the moon using Technologies that weren't supposed to exist, then you'd want to conceal that, even if it meant recreating the events on a stage.
But the video footage we saw could easily have been faked. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Stanley Kubrick was filming 2001 at about the same time and was perfecting highly realistic sets and cinematography.
Don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The film footage can be fake and the moon landings can be real... just whatever they saw on the moon couldn't be broadcast to the world cuz 'national security', hence the need to make fake moon footage.
Both "whatever they saw on the moon" and the technology they used to get there might have needed to be hidden. Therefore, get Stanley Kubrick to shoot you some convincing grainy B&W video and there you go.
The video we saw was a joke. IMO it means we were there but no way in hell they would show that stuff live or even on a delay. What were to happen if something went wrong and the entire world watched us fall on our face? What would happen if we got there and other "beings" were there? Its my belief that anything could probably be true except what they showed/told us. Nothing about those landings or our moon would shock me....down to it actually being made of swiss cheese. These f*ckers lie about everything.
But they didn't lie about that. The live video was to establish that it was real...because the whole world was watching. Did the Russians complain that it was a "fake"? No, they did not. Because they knew better, and were also trying to get there. Everyone connected with the space program knew it was real, as they would have known.
It is a mystery to me why, in later years, a whole generation of ignoramuses has grown up, knowing nothing about the subject, and claiming it was all a "fake." As though you would know how to make it real. It really seems like it is more important to you that it be a fake, than for it to be real. What an empty view of history.
I say it’s worth it to dispel the lies for 2 reasons:
It helps people who may be otherwise at risk of falling prey to these theories.
It helps people learn how to approach this subject or any other subject with facts and reason. It teaches others to think for themselves.
(Bonus reason) more often than not I find it fun to dance intellectual circles around flat earthers/moon landing deniers and watch them get frustrated.
You didn't answer the question, because the answer is "no." The Russians had a strong competitive motive to "out" any falsehood, and they had access to the world press. Do you think we do not have access to that? Next time ask a question for understanding and not a rhetorical flourish.
So you are saying, that video that they broadcast to the world was real? They lie about some things but not others? You also assume that the entire cold war was real. The rivalry with the soviets, all. I again say bullshit. You believe the mainstream narrative. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. I thought we were all on the same page here. To believe all of that is to believe there is no cabal trying to move forward with the global order.
I was fighting the cold war for half of my career. It was real enough. The world is an interesting place. There is truth and there are lies. One must develop discernment to tell the difference. As an aeronautical engineer, I can say there was nothing false about the Apollo program---or, really, any of NASA's space programs.
If you take the view that everything is false, then you have thrown yourself into a mental prison from which there is no escape. By your own definition, no one is telling the truth. Not Q, and especially not you. You just think you are telling the truth, but you are lying too.
We are on the same page if we are seeking and uphold the truth. In order to do that, we have to accept that it exists. You cannot answer what I am explaining to you, so your response is not intellectual but emotional. Your cherished world view is endangered. You want a world of lies.
How do you know you were fighting the cold war though? The powers that be could certainly be working together and the men under them , without a clue, working to another end. They compartmentalize EVERYTHING.Unless you were one of the top dogs you could just as easily be fooled. The same as a bunch of NASA employees or masons who have not worked their way up. I think it is naïve to believe what they are telling you knowing what we know. But...more power to you. The famous quote being, one must develop discernment, it is very true. Are you honestly telling me, there is no way...no chance you were fooled. How were you fighting the cold war? No chance of optics? I am not trying to insult you, just curious how it is you are so ironclad certain you know what you know?
It's called hardware. And its performance. You don't build deadly hardware for a fake competition. In case you were not aware, Boeing was at one time nearly the whole supplier of strategic nuclear weapons to the Air Force.
And this is also true from being exposed to classified information use for the design and development of hardware.
Or what else was I doing? Can you tell me? How do you know that you are hit in the head by a hailstone?
I have no idea what YOU were doing, that is why I asked you. You don't build deadly hardware for fake competition, but you may build it to work to where we are going now. The nwo agenda. Why else would they build hundreds of dumbs if their intent were not to destroy the population, level the cities and start from scratch. I am going to assume that your cold war pushed the tech to where we are today. I still see all of this orchestrated by a single group pulling the strings to make it look like 2 sides of the same coin. For sure you will fight me on this tooth and nail. You worked your entire life being made to think those pesky reds were the bad guys. Its the same in this country, playing the pubs vs the dems. If we are fighting each other we are not fighting them. Just trying to think out of the box. I asked is it possible if you were fooled. You did not answer. I do believe it is very possible. I am sure that would piss you off IF it were true. Not my intent. Just trying to open your mind a bit.
There are some underground facilities, but not to the degree you are imagining. And it is laughable (ha, ha, ha) to suppose my work had anything to do with such a fantasy (ha, ha, ha). Since "they" haven't built "hundreds of 'dumbs'," there is no "why?" to answer.
No one is pulling the Russians' strings. (Thank God.) The Reds were Bad Guys---just ask Solzhenitsyn. But the Russians of today are not the Soviets. No, it is not possible I was fooled. You don't have any sense of what a secret entails, and I do. A secret that vast cannot be contained. You can believe that unicorns fart fairies, but it doesn't make it true. Nothing is easier than to believe. It is harder to know what you are talking about.
A few potential answers: 1) Disinfo necessary; 2) propaganda footage but subsequent factual landings; 3) some sort of alternate definition of moon in the vein of "learn our comms." Or of course 4) it's real, but that seems off the table from your question.
Reasonable take. Trust me, I wish I could admit that there was a possibility that the apollo missions, as sold to the public, were real. But there are so, so many obviously faked things about them that I cannot in good faith say that they were real.
They have been to the moon and dropped a bomb because there are apparent structures on the moon. I dont know if the moon landings were real or not but they have for sure been to the moon.
Because they are real? I've never seen anything convincing from the Moontards, it's a stupid as Flat Earthers with their lack of basic physics knowledge. Now back to Conspiracies.win with you.
It has literally nothing to do with flat earth. The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took off from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.
There are 1000 other pieces of evidence, but sure, call people flat earthers when you know nothing about the actual evidence.
A 40K computer can do a lot more than you imagine. My very first computer had 8K internal memory with an accessory pack that brought it up to 16K. I learned BASIC programming on that computer
The Radio Shack Color Computer had 64K, with 32K ordinarily usable.
With that 32K, I was able to type in a program from Rainbow Magazine that allowed the computer to duplicate the function of a $10,000 telefax machine. I could connect the computer to my shortwave receiver and decode weather maps, satellite photos, and news photos before they were put in the newspaper.
I also had a program on that computer that you could input sheet music into and play synthesized music through the stereo, or hook the computer to a MIDI keyboard and play multiple voices and instruments simultaneously.
You could load up the OS-9 operating system and have multiple windows open running stuff before Windows came out.
It could do things that an IBM PC couldn't do for years, even though the PC had way more memory. And even then, you had to add separate circuit boards to the PC to do what the Color Computer could do internally on its own.
So yes, the 40K computer the astronauts had could really fly them to the moon. The computer wasn't doing that much.
Maybe they went to the moon, maybe they didn't. But it was not impossible because of the computer.
Fabulous, you addressed point #1. Now try going for the other 15 provided, specifically how there was not even the slightest disturbance of the moon dust in the photos of the lander after a 10,000 lb thrust engine landed. How about how the apollo 11 astronauts explaining that they could not see any stars in space? How about them not being able to jump more than 12 inches in 1/6th earth gravity? How about the fact that current astronauts saying they can't go because they "destroyed" the 1970s technology? How about the van allen radiation belt?
If the dust were blown away from under the lander, there might be just rock there. The area away from the lander, where Neil's footprint was photographed did have dust. If the sun was in the sky, they probably couldn't see anything else. You try jumping any height at all in a tight space suit with a compressed inner suit. Most of the "1970s technology" is the data that was recorded on reels of tape, and the machines were eventually gotten rid of. There is a project underway by a group who has obtained tape machines that they are restoring so that the data can be recovered. The spaceships weren't designed to be reusable, so they are in museums. One thing that makes it hard for astronauts to go to the moon nowadays is their greater expectations of comfort and safety. The original astronauts were crammed into a very small space and had the minimum equipment and supplies necessary for their mission. The astronauts didn't stay in the Van Allen belts. They quickly passed through them. Fire burns, but you can jump through a wall of fire quickly enough to survive. So there.
Have you ever done any manual exposure photography? Just wondering what your thoughts are on every sequential shot being almost a perfect work of art, work worthy of a masterful artist.
Manual exposure and focus in a very difficult environment ... near perfect framing without even looking through a viewfinder - just hand held.
Take a manual-capable camera out to your driveway and try to get some good photos of your car. Even if you know what the exposure should be given the conditions and you read the scale on the lens for focus, the framing is near impossible.
I just can’t believe every picture is tack sharp, well framed, and nearly perfect in exposure.
I’m pretty sure there were no ‘misses’ based on the negative numbering, or at least very, very few.
There are some videos that cover the details of this argument. I haven’t watched any them in years, so I can’t speak to all of the facts.
What do you think?
Give the experiment a try - heck, try it with an iphone, just cover the screen and frame the pic by eye.
I won’t get into the ability to work a manual camera with the gloves on, or some of the additional arguments.
My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.
Your brownie most likely had a functioning viewfinder for framing and composition.
How about we focus on the framing? Do you think the compositions achieved are possible given that the viewfinders / reflex systems were removed and the camera was mounted on a chest harness?
I encourage you to look at this with an open mind and possibly carry out an experiment of your own. Maybe try some ‘blind’ no-viewfinder photography and see what your ‘keeper’ ratio is.
Have a look at the sequence of Aldrin stepping out of the lander. Have a look at the Réseau plate marks. These were not ‘cropped’ for the framing. They were framed in the camera with a moving subject using a chest harness. Amazing.
I would also ask if you can find ANY photography from nasa or true professionals of the time that come close to presenting the level of clarity, photgraphic perfection, and drama as the landing photos. Have a look through nasa’s own archives. Does anything from anyone compare?
I would not buy the argument that the lighting environment makes them so exceptionally perfect and dramatic, nor that it is the special gear. To the contrary, those factors would add up to ‘worse’ photos. They are just too perfect.
Because they were real.
I heard they filmed fakes in case there was a mission failure live, and also showed fakes because of what they found up there.
Mike Bara has books about this
Think. The moon landings are real, but the footage we see was filmed in a studio on earth before they left - that’s so obvious. What we see of Neil Armstrong kangaroo hopping around etc. was filmed in a studio and patched into NASAs audio. One of the recordings/audios from the moon mentions something like ‘We have visitors’. One of the Astronauts was telling NASA that they had an audience of UFOs watching.
And what does Q say when at Q&A post when someone asked ‘Are we alone’? Roswell? Q replies.
this is the only explanation that is possible. The apollo missions, at least the film shown to the public, were such an obvious hoax it is a shame to see people trying to defend it even on this sub. Appreciate your comment.
one option: intentional misdirection. every Q drop couldn't have been 100% accurate or the deep state would know it's authenticity. drops had to include demonstrably false (to the DS) statements to misdirect them and have them questioning. moon landing real or fake isn't high on priority list of waking up folks and needing imminent correction
I obviously agree, at least the apollo missions were obviously faked. but even on GA I'm getting massively downvoted for trying to tell people that apollo was a clear hoax.
Fair enough but if you notice that most of the people aren't sharpening steel, they are comparing my opinion to flat earth without being able to address any of the points. But I get where you are coming from.
I get where you're coming from too. The stack of lies is so tall now, it sometimes feels like everything is a lie. And it would piss me off to be compared to a flat- earther as well. We'll get it all figured out together.
The way they're feverishly defending the landings while insulting your intelligence looks like shill behavior to me. But sadly, it wouldn't surprise me one way or another if they were/weren't shills.
Anyone saying 'we went, you're wrong, you're dumb' is basically saying 'the science is settled' and sound like a leftard.
Personally, I know we can't get people (or equipment) past the Van Allen belt cause it's actually the firmament. Everyone can blast me all they want on that, but some things you just gotta take on faith.
OP I think you would benefit from looking into the Sonora Aero Club and trying to track where those developments went....they'll give you better insight into what I said earlier: we went to the moon but the landings are fake.
Maybe, just maybe, Q said that the moon landing were real, the earth is round, and JFK Jr is dead… because these things are true.
“But muh disinfo necessary!”
If you’re going to invoke that line to accuse Q of lying when it’s convenient, then why should we believe anything he says? If you’re going to believe what Q says, you’re going to have to take his word at face value unless there’s evidence to suggest otherwise.
Q himself said disinformation is necessary. We don't take anything on faith alone.
And unfortunately the evidence is beyond any shadow of a doubt that the apollo missions, at least the footage that was shown to the public, are obvious hoaxes.
Q did say that disinfo was necessary, but that does not mean you can arbitrarily apply this to other things he said. If you’re going to assert that Q said X when he “really meant” the opposite, then you’re going to have to provide evidence. And unfortunately, the “evidence” that the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat is far from conclusive. I’ve argued with these types for years, and their arguments boil down to 3 main categories:
(Insert aspect of science or space travel here) doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand it, therefore the whole thing’s a hoax.
The government disagrees with me, therefore I’m right.
I cherry picked some space related data to make 666 pop up every once in a while, therefore NASA consists of satanic Freemasons who lie about everything.
So yes, we are going to disagree because moon landing deniers and flat earthers aren’t interested in truth, facts, or reason. They want their pet theory to be true regardless of evidence because they have a persecution complex. They love other people telling them they’re wrong because it cements in their minds even more that they’re right.
The cabal ran the world for 1,000s of years. You don't think they can build a rocket? Q also wasn't addressing Apollo 11, so that may or may not've been a TV hoax.
there is a massive difference between building a rocket and getting humans through radiation belts, landing safely on the moon, taking off from the moon, and returning w/ appropriate life support.
Q said aliens are real, it can't be that impossible can it?
Sending a rocket through empty space isn't that much more difficult than just getting a rocket to orbit.
The spacex rockets landing themselves are pretty epic. Look at how advanced the SR-71 blackbird from 1964 is, and this is the stuff they allow to be declassified, imagine the secret stuff they've hidden from just the last 100 years.
I take Q's comment as yes, we landed there....no, not necessarily by the means we have been told/shown whatsoever. I see we have the same low iq shithead shills claiming the buildings pancaked on 911 due to heat defending we launched a tin can into space carrying a rover, probably weighing more than said tin can, and succeeded on the first attempt....sure....
this is the only explanation that is possible. The apollo missions, at least the film shown to the public, were such an obvious hoax it is a shame to see people trying to defend it even on this sub. Appreciate your comment.
I would say it actually happened but maybe footage was fake because they found alien life? There was a disruption in comms right after some peculiar verbiage from an astronaut…
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took of from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. Want to explain how they would not have seen the milky way and thousands of stars in space?
NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum. NASA gave other countries petrified wood and told them it was moon rocks. There is clear, undeniable evidence of the flag waving without being touched on a moon with no atmosphere.
There are 1000 other pieces of evidence, but sure, call people ignorant instead of arguing the evidence.
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took of from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.
If I recall, he said we've been to the moon, not specifically that the moon landings were real.
It might be that Apollo was fake but we indeed have a secret real moon program.
that would be the only possible answer that makes sense. People in this thread trying to defend apollo is hilarious. So easy to understand that they were fake.
WRONG!
u/#q2225
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took off from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.
There are 1000 other pieces of evidence.
I'm good with all of these assertions. However, the question that drives me crazy is this. Why didn't the Russians rat NASA out?
The Nazis won World War II and the "Cold War" was a farce.
The German scientists working for the Soviet Union weren't going to rat out the German scientists working for the United States. They collaborated on their research projects.
Very interesting point.
Because they were bribed not too.
That would have to be the case wouldn't it.
This is actually covered in one of the documentaries. According to one woman whose father worked at NASA, she said that above the political theater of the cold war, that russian and US technocrats were close friends. The cold war was largely a scare/fear tactic to keep people in line and prevent the outbreak of another global conflict. Above the theater, the world has been controlled by the same people on both sides.
So, now you expect me to believe that wealthy people around the world would use their vast resources to mislead the public. ;)
Since I am certain of that already, if that turned out to be the case, I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
We’re going to need more evidence than a second hand anecdote that US and USSR were secretly buddies the whole time during the Cold War.
Even if they were buddies then, the USSR doesn’t exist anymore and the current govt is not friendly to US/Deep State interests in the slightest. Why wouldn’t Putin or any post USSR president spill the goods?
Tell me you know nothing about Operation Paperclip without telling me you know nothing about Operation Paperclip, let alone anything about what the Russians were doing.
Even NASA admits many Nazi scientists joined the Russian space program to those who actually are willing to read-
Much has been written in the West on the history of the Soviet space program but few Westerners have read direct first-hand accounts of the men and women who were behind the many Russian accomplishments in exploring space. The memoirs of Academician Boris Chertok, translated from the original Russian, fills that gap. In these writings, spread over four volumes, Chertok not only describes and reflects upon his experiences, but he also elicits and extracts profound insights from an epic story about a society's quest to explore the cosmos.
https://www.nasa.gov/connect/ebooks/rockets_people_vol2_detail.html
From the introduction to the PDF of Boris Chertok's translated book linked in the article above. (Read the parts in bold if you skip the rest.) -
Chertok’s name first appeared in print in the newspaper Izvestiya in an article commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the launch of Sputnik in 1987. In a wide-ranging interview on the creation of Sputnik, Chertok spoke with the utmost respect for his former boss, the late Korolev. He also eloquently balanced love for his country with criticisms of the widespread inertia and inefficiency that characterized late-period Soviet society.
His first written works in the glasnost’ period, published in early 1988 in the Air Force journal Aviatsiya i kosmonavtika (Aviation and Cosmonautics), underlined Korolev’s central role in the foundation and growth of the Soviet space program.
By this time, it was as if all the patched up straps that held together a stagnant empire were falling apart one by one; even as Russia was in the midst of one of its most historic transformations, the floodgates of free expression were transforming the country’s own history. People like Chertok were now free to speak about their experiences with candor.
Readers could now learn about episodes such as Korolev’s brutal incarceration in the late 1930s, the dramatic story behind the fatal space mission of Soyuz-1 in 1967, and details of the failed and abandoned Moon project in the 1960s.
Chertok himself shed light on a missing piece of history in a series of five articles published in Izvestiya in early 1992 on the German contribution to the foundation of the Soviet missile program after World War II.
And then read this next excerpt from the introduction-
Chertok’s descriptive powers are particularly evident in describing the chaotic nature of the Soviet mission to recover and collect rocketry equipment in Germany after World War II.
Interspersed with his contemporary diary entries, his language conveys the combination of joy, confusion, and often anti-climax that the end of the war presaged for Soviet representatives in Germany.
In one breath, Chertok and his team are looking for hidden caches of German matériel in an underground mine, while in another they are face to face with the deadly consequences of a soldier who had raped a young German woman (Volume I, Chapter 21). There are many such seemingly incongruous anecdotes during Chertok’s time in Germany, from the experience of visiting the Nazi slave labor camp at Dora soon after liberation in 1945, to the deportation of hundreds of German scientists to the USSR in 1946.
Read that again.
If you can't admit you have much to learn after reading that, I don't know what more I can write.
Also, to your point about the Russian government not spilling the beans, maybe you should go directly to the source instead of relying on mainstream media to tell you the truth.
Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia's national space agency, Roscosmos, describes a YouTube video clip he posted to Twitter in 2018-
Отвечаю на вопросы президента Молдавии: были ли американцы на Луне, зачем у @roscosmos есть истребители и трамваи и как российская космонавтика поможет молдавскому винограду?
In English-
I answer the questions of the President of Moldova: were there Americans on the moon, why @roscosmos has fighter jets and trams, and how will Russian cosmonautics help Moldovan grapes?
https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/1066227238998298624
https://nitter.net/Rogozin/status/1066227238998298624
Here's an archived Time magazine article describing this interview (which they've since pulled offline)-
Russian Space Agency Official Jokingly Pledges to Verify American Moon Landings
Rogozin was responding to a question about whether or not NASA actually landed on the moon nearly 50 years ago. He appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering. But conspiracies surrounding NASA’s moon missions are common in Russia.
https://web.archive.org/web/20181125054815/https://time.com/5462672/russia-verify-american-moon-landing/
What's telling is Google/YouTube refuses to show Russian subtitles on the above video...
Meanwhile, even Newsweek admits half of the Russians they polled believe the moon landing was fake. Kek.
https://www.newsweek.com/moon-landing-hoax-russia-poll-1521595
Holy mother of God.
A space suit is 280 lbs, without the astronaut.
Thank you for playing. Enjoy your time on conspiracies.WIN
Sure they went to the Moon with a 40 kbyte computer. Why not? They had elaborate manual procedures to make it work, however. When the X-20 program (DynaSoar) was active, the Boeing company figured out a way for the astronaut to manually pilot the vehicle all the way from orbit to a ground landing. We were able to do impressive things back in the days of slide rules.
The Moon Buggy was not for funsies. It was to get them farther from the landing site for samples and observations.
Why would there be a crater when the dust layer was thin, backed by rock, and the exhaust plume had expanded like a huge bubble? (That's what they do in vacuum: take a sharp outward turn past the exhaust cone.) That like expecting a helicopter to produce a sandstorm whenever it landed on arid ground.
13 feet on the moon would be 2+ feet on the Earth. Try that. Then try it again wearing 175 pounds of Moon Suit. With the bending of your limbs constrained by the fabric and joints. (We are working up to the realization that you don't know what you are talking about.)
The Moon is about 350,000 km from the Earth. The light speed delay is essentially 1 second. System delays would make it longer. Do you have any scientific reference that substantiates a claim that the delay was shorter?
Whether you see stars or not depends on how dark adapted you are and whether you have been gazing into the star field for some time, or glance at it from a lighted environment.
Not all the data is destroyed. Mostly what happened is that we still have the data, but it is on storage media for which we no longer have readout systems. That is a stupid oopsie, but not a deliberate plot. And what are we missing that you would be so concerned about?
We didn't "destroy" the technology to go to the Moon. We just threw it aside and let it rot, for want of continuing to go there. It takes a huge effort in time and money to make and launch an Apollo mission. We couldn't afford to keep it up. (Vietnam War and all that.) You can see it in museums. We also have lost the knowledge of how to build 16-inch naval cannon, for the same reason. Elon Musk is revving up a new approach. (Don't hold your breath for the Space Launch System. It is NASA's equivalent to building a pyramid.)
The Apollo 7 mission never left low Earth orbit because it was not meant to. It was an early test of the system.
The Van Allen belts did not destroy any computers. Not even for the lunar probe missions. Not even the electronics on Explorer I which was the satellite that detected them. Nobody was killed by the Van Allen belts. It makes a difference whether you are passing through at close to 10 km/sec or hanging out for a long time. (By the way, you shield a computer by putting it in a shielding box, not by making the entire spacecraft a shield.)
If all the other thousand pieces of evidence are as flimsy as these, you would not be able to sit on it without it collapsing.
Why did Michael Collins say he couldn't see any stars in space, clown? All while Neil armstrong looked like he wanted to blow his head off after supposedly achieving the greatest accomplishment in human history.
Did you even read what I said? There I am in the Apollo capsule, with the lights on, trying to look through a porthole that is reflecting the light. Am I going to see stars? Or there I am on the lunar surface in the glare of sunlight off the regolith, incapable of getting dark adapted. Am I going to see stars? A camera won't, which is why they were not photographed that way.
Different astronauts had different circumstances and different dark adaptation thresholds. I can go outside my house at night on a clear sky and not see many stars, due to the light pollution from my downtown area. I know they are there, but my eyes are getting old.
Because the spacecraft has bright interior lights. Hop into your car at night, turn all the interior lights on, then tell me how well you can see the stars without rolling the windows down.
Same thing for why stars don’t appear in the background of photos from the moon. The brightness of the light reflected by lunar rocks/soil washes out the starlight, which is too dim to creat enough contrast. That and the cameras they brought weren’t telescopes, so they weren’t designed to picture stars. Again, try taking photos of the stars with an old hand held camera and see how well they show up.
I drive my car every night in rural country and see a fuck ton of stars.
Do you turn on all your interior lights?
Is this ScIeNCE...?
Cause it look like science, but it doesn't fit with my conformation bias, so it can't be true.
It is science when confirmation bias is not involved.
Lol, that was my point..
I lost all desire to engage with this moon landing BS , after I saw a giy trying to compare a leaf blower here on earth, to rocket exhaust on the moon.
Soooo.... after that I just gave up trying to explain aerodynamics and propulsión to people who don't want to learn real science.
https://www.sibrel.com/
Here's the fact-checkers debunking it.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/09/fact-check-deathbed-confession-video-does-not-prove-moon-landing-hoax.html
My friend down the street was over the room of computers at Huntsville. He is a brain. We went to the moon.
It's been my hypothesis that they went to the moon using Technologies that weren't supposed to exist, then you'd want to conceal that, even if it meant recreating the events on a stage.
This is the answer right here.
"Moon landings are real."
But the video footage we saw could easily have been faked. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Stanley Kubrick was filming 2001 at about the same time and was perfecting highly realistic sets and cinematography.
Don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The film footage can be fake and the moon landings can be real... just whatever they saw on the moon couldn't be broadcast to the world cuz 'national security', hence the need to make fake moon footage.
Both "whatever they saw on the moon" and the technology they used to get there might have needed to be hidden. Therefore, get Stanley Kubrick to shoot you some convincing grainy B&W video and there you go.
The video we saw was a joke. IMO it means we were there but no way in hell they would show that stuff live or even on a delay. What were to happen if something went wrong and the entire world watched us fall on our face? What would happen if we got there and other "beings" were there? Its my belief that anything could probably be true except what they showed/told us. Nothing about those landings or our moon would shock me....down to it actually being made of swiss cheese. These f*ckers lie about everything.
But they didn't lie about that. The live video was to establish that it was real...because the whole world was watching. Did the Russians complain that it was a "fake"? No, they did not. Because they knew better, and were also trying to get there. Everyone connected with the space program knew it was real, as they would have known.
It is a mystery to me why, in later years, a whole generation of ignoramuses has grown up, knowing nothing about the subject, and claiming it was all a "fake." As though you would know how to make it real. It really seems like it is more important to you that it be a fake, than for it to be real. What an empty view of history.
You may have a point. I struggle between ignoring the witless or trying to dispel the LIES that they have been told and embrace.
I say it’s worth it to dispel the lies for 2 reasons:
It helps people who may be otherwise at risk of falling prey to these theories.
It helps people learn how to approach this subject or any other subject with facts and reason. It teaches others to think for themselves.
(Bonus reason) more often than not I find it fun to dance intellectual circles around flat earthers/moon landing deniers and watch them get frustrated.
You are right...though I can't be too tempted by (3). Leads to sloppy work. Best to be as clinical as possible.
Do you think the US government would tell us anything coming out of the Soviet Union?
You didn't answer the question, because the answer is "no." The Russians had a strong competitive motive to "out" any falsehood, and they had access to the world press. Do you think we do not have access to that? Next time ask a question for understanding and not a rhetorical flourish.
So you are saying, that video that they broadcast to the world was real? They lie about some things but not others? You also assume that the entire cold war was real. The rivalry with the soviets, all. I again say bullshit. You believe the mainstream narrative. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now. I thought we were all on the same page here. To believe all of that is to believe there is no cabal trying to move forward with the global order.
I was fighting the cold war for half of my career. It was real enough. The world is an interesting place. There is truth and there are lies. One must develop discernment to tell the difference. As an aeronautical engineer, I can say there was nothing false about the Apollo program---or, really, any of NASA's space programs.
If you take the view that everything is false, then you have thrown yourself into a mental prison from which there is no escape. By your own definition, no one is telling the truth. Not Q, and especially not you. You just think you are telling the truth, but you are lying too.
We are on the same page if we are seeking and uphold the truth. In order to do that, we have to accept that it exists. You cannot answer what I am explaining to you, so your response is not intellectual but emotional. Your cherished world view is endangered. You want a world of lies.
How do you know you were fighting the cold war though? The powers that be could certainly be working together and the men under them , without a clue, working to another end. They compartmentalize EVERYTHING.Unless you were one of the top dogs you could just as easily be fooled. The same as a bunch of NASA employees or masons who have not worked their way up. I think it is naïve to believe what they are telling you knowing what we know. But...more power to you. The famous quote being, one must develop discernment, it is very true. Are you honestly telling me, there is no way...no chance you were fooled. How were you fighting the cold war? No chance of optics? I am not trying to insult you, just curious how it is you are so ironclad certain you know what you know?
It's called hardware. And its performance. You don't build deadly hardware for a fake competition. In case you were not aware, Boeing was at one time nearly the whole supplier of strategic nuclear weapons to the Air Force.
And this is also true from being exposed to classified information use for the design and development of hardware.
Or what else was I doing? Can you tell me? How do you know that you are hit in the head by a hailstone?
I have no idea what YOU were doing, that is why I asked you. You don't build deadly hardware for fake competition, but you may build it to work to where we are going now. The nwo agenda. Why else would they build hundreds of dumbs if their intent were not to destroy the population, level the cities and start from scratch. I am going to assume that your cold war pushed the tech to where we are today. I still see all of this orchestrated by a single group pulling the strings to make it look like 2 sides of the same coin. For sure you will fight me on this tooth and nail. You worked your entire life being made to think those pesky reds were the bad guys. Its the same in this country, playing the pubs vs the dems. If we are fighting each other we are not fighting them. Just trying to think out of the box. I asked is it possible if you were fooled. You did not answer. I do believe it is very possible. I am sure that would piss you off IF it were true. Not my intent. Just trying to open your mind a bit.
There are some underground facilities, but not to the degree you are imagining. And it is laughable (ha, ha, ha) to suppose my work had anything to do with such a fantasy (ha, ha, ha). Since "they" haven't built "hundreds of 'dumbs'," there is no "why?" to answer.
No one is pulling the Russians' strings. (Thank God.) The Reds were Bad Guys---just ask Solzhenitsyn. But the Russians of today are not the Soviets. No, it is not possible I was fooled. You don't have any sense of what a secret entails, and I do. A secret that vast cannot be contained. You can believe that unicorns fart fairies, but it doesn't make it true. Nothing is easier than to believe. It is harder to know what you are talking about.
A few potential answers: 1) Disinfo necessary; 2) propaganda footage but subsequent factual landings; 3) some sort of alternate definition of moon in the vein of "learn our comms." Or of course 4) it's real, but that seems off the table from your question.
Reasonable take. Trust me, I wish I could admit that there was a possibility that the apollo missions, as sold to the public, were real. But there are so, so many obviously faked things about them that I cannot in good faith say that they were real.
Think about this: what you think is "fake" is really only your ignorance. Learn more.
Disinformation is necessary.
They have been to the moon and dropped a bomb because there are apparent structures on the moon. I dont know if the moon landings were real or not but they have for sure been to the moon.
Because they are real? I've never seen anything convincing from the Moontards, it's a stupid as Flat Earthers with their lack of basic physics knowledge. Now back to Conspiracies.win with you.
It has literally nothing to do with flat earth. The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took off from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.
There are 1000 other pieces of evidence, but sure, call people flat earthers when you know nothing about the actual evidence.
You sure are repetitious.
A 40K computer can do a lot more than you imagine. My very first computer had 8K internal memory with an accessory pack that brought it up to 16K. I learned BASIC programming on that computer
The Radio Shack Color Computer had 64K, with 32K ordinarily usable.
With that 32K, I was able to type in a program from Rainbow Magazine that allowed the computer to duplicate the function of a $10,000 telefax machine. I could connect the computer to my shortwave receiver and decode weather maps, satellite photos, and news photos before they were put in the newspaper.
I also had a program on that computer that you could input sheet music into and play synthesized music through the stereo, or hook the computer to a MIDI keyboard and play multiple voices and instruments simultaneously.
You could load up the OS-9 operating system and have multiple windows open running stuff before Windows came out.
It could do things that an IBM PC couldn't do for years, even though the PC had way more memory. And even then, you had to add separate circuit boards to the PC to do what the Color Computer could do internally on its own.
So yes, the 40K computer the astronauts had could really fly them to the moon. The computer wasn't doing that much.
Maybe they went to the moon, maybe they didn't. But it was not impossible because of the computer.
Fabulous, you addressed point #1. Now try going for the other 15 provided, specifically how there was not even the slightest disturbance of the moon dust in the photos of the lander after a 10,000 lb thrust engine landed. How about how the apollo 11 astronauts explaining that they could not see any stars in space? How about them not being able to jump more than 12 inches in 1/6th earth gravity? How about the fact that current astronauts saying they can't go because they "destroyed" the 1970s technology? How about the van allen radiation belt?
If the dust were blown away from under the lander, there might be just rock there. The area away from the lander, where Neil's footprint was photographed did have dust. If the sun was in the sky, they probably couldn't see anything else. You try jumping any height at all in a tight space suit with a compressed inner suit. Most of the "1970s technology" is the data that was recorded on reels of tape, and the machines were eventually gotten rid of. There is a project underway by a group who has obtained tape machines that they are restoring so that the data can be recovered. The spaceships weren't designed to be reusable, so they are in museums. One thing that makes it hard for astronauts to go to the moon nowadays is their greater expectations of comfort and safety. The original astronauts were crammed into a very small space and had the minimum equipment and supplies necessary for their mission. The astronauts didn't stay in the Van Allen belts. They quickly passed through them. Fire burns, but you can jump through a wall of fire quickly enough to survive. So there.
Have you ever done any manual exposure photography? Just wondering what your thoughts are on every sequential shot being almost a perfect work of art, work worthy of a masterful artist.
Manual exposure and focus in a very difficult environment ... near perfect framing without even looking through a viewfinder - just hand held.
Take a manual-capable camera out to your driveway and try to get some good photos of your car. Even if you know what the exposure should be given the conditions and you read the scale on the lens for focus, the framing is near impossible.
I just can’t believe every picture is tack sharp, well framed, and nearly perfect in exposure.
I’m pretty sure there were no ‘misses’ based on the negative numbering, or at least very, very few.
There are some videos that cover the details of this argument. I haven’t watched any them in years, so I can’t speak to all of the facts.
What do you think?
Give the experiment a try - heck, try it with an iphone, just cover the screen and frame the pic by eye.
I won’t get into the ability to work a manual camera with the gloves on, or some of the additional arguments.
My parents used a Kodak Brownie camera the whole time I was growing up, and every single photo was in focus, except for one that I took as a child because I couldn't hold the camera still. The camera was fixed focus with a focal length that kept everything sharp and it was a fixed exposure.
I could take hundreds of photos every day with that Brownie, and they would all be sharp as a tack. You can do that with that type of camera and regular black and white film. Color film was expensive years ago, so my parents only shot one roll in color when I was growing up. Those photos are sharp as well. I took the negatives in to have new prints made for me to have back in the 70s. Even today, they look like brand new photos.
So yes, it's fairly easy to get sharp, well-exposed photos every time with the right camera and film. And it's not that hard to aim a box camera. Now a cellphone camera is a different animal entirely. That's why I use a real camera for serious work.
Your brownie most likely had a functioning viewfinder for framing and composition.
How about we focus on the framing? Do you think the compositions achieved are possible given that the viewfinders / reflex systems were removed and the camera was mounted on a chest harness?
I encourage you to look at this with an open mind and possibly carry out an experiment of your own. Maybe try some ‘blind’ no-viewfinder photography and see what your ‘keeper’ ratio is.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11_eva_thumbs.html
Have a look at the sequence of Aldrin stepping out of the lander. Have a look at the Réseau plate marks. These were not ‘cropped’ for the framing. They were framed in the camera with a moving subject using a chest harness. Amazing.
I would also ask if you can find ANY photography from nasa or true professionals of the time that come close to presenting the level of clarity, photgraphic perfection, and drama as the landing photos. Have a look through nasa’s own archives. Does anything from anyone compare?
I would not buy the argument that the lighting environment makes them so exceptionally perfect and dramatic, nor that it is the special gear. To the contrary, those factors would add up to ‘worse’ photos. They are just too perfect.
What we saw was faked Too many faux pas!
Because they were real. I heard they filmed fakes in case there was a mission failure live, and also showed fakes because of what they found up there. Mike Bara has books about this
Think. The moon landings are real, but the footage we see was filmed in a studio on earth before they left - that’s so obvious. What we see of Neil Armstrong kangaroo hopping around etc. was filmed in a studio and patched into NASAs audio. One of the recordings/audios from the moon mentions something like ‘We have visitors’. One of the Astronauts was telling NASA that they had an audience of UFOs watching.
And what does Q say when at Q&A post when someone asked ‘Are we alone’? Roswell? Q replies.
No.
Highest classification.
Consider the vastness of space.
Q
this is the only explanation that is possible. The apollo missions, at least the film shown to the public, were such an obvious hoax it is a shame to see people trying to defend it even on this sub. Appreciate your comment.
Q seems to be saying that the landings/missions were real.
But the footage we saw was faked.
Now it makes sense.
Q made no mention of footage being faked, but that would indeed be the only possible explanation because the apollo mission footage is fake as fuck.
one option: intentional misdirection. every Q drop couldn't have been 100% accurate or the deep state would know it's authenticity. drops had to include demonstrably false (to the DS) statements to misdirect them and have them questioning. moon landing real or fake isn't high on priority list of waking up folks and needing imminent correction
I’ve gotta say, that Lunar Lander is one of the sleekest, most robust most impressive pieces of hardware ever constructed!
hahahahaha
Here is NASA's own admission
WE HAVE NEVER LEFT LOW EARTH ORBIT! HERE IS PROOF!
They probably go anytime they want in a saucer. That would be outside the public domain. Zip over there in like two seconds and get out the props.
no man has ever walked on the moon, no freaking way.
I obviously agree, at least the apollo missions were obviously faked. but even on GA I'm getting massively downvoted for trying to tell people that apollo was a clear hoax.
Relax, brothers and sisters argue. Steel sharpens steel fren.
Fair enough but if you notice that most of the people aren't sharpening steel, they are comparing my opinion to flat earth without being able to address any of the points. But I get where you are coming from.
I get where you're coming from too. The stack of lies is so tall now, it sometimes feels like everything is a lie. And it would piss me off to be compared to a flat- earther as well. We'll get it all figured out together.
appreciate finding people like you on this sub. In fact most people on here at great. I agree, the truth will come out eventually
The way they're feverishly defending the landings while insulting your intelligence looks like shill behavior to me. But sadly, it wouldn't surprise me one way or another if they were/weren't shills.
Anyone saying 'we went, you're wrong, you're dumb' is basically saying 'the science is settled' and sound like a leftard.
Personally, I know we can't get people (or equipment) past the Van Allen belt cause it's actually the firmament. Everyone can blast me all they want on that, but some things you just gotta take on faith.
OP I think you would benefit from looking into the Sonora Aero Club and trying to track where those developments went....they'll give you better insight into what I said earlier: we went to the moon but the landings are fake.
Here's a pic to tantalize you: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJI5L7YU4AAiL5P.png
The individual interviewed here is highly controversial (for reasons other than the subject material), but he does discuss the Moon and Mars with some relevance to your question: https://roserambles.org/2021/10/24/project-looking-glass-must-see-video-october-24-2021/
Could not let the fake moon landing folks gain more ground before revealing the space colony on the dark side of the moon.
Maybe, just maybe, Q said that the moon landing were real, the earth is round, and JFK Jr is dead… because these things are true.
“But muh disinfo necessary!”
If you’re going to invoke that line to accuse Q of lying when it’s convenient, then why should we believe anything he says? If you’re going to believe what Q says, you’re going to have to take his word at face value unless there’s evidence to suggest otherwise.
Q himself said disinformation is necessary. We don't take anything on faith alone.
And unfortunately the evidence is beyond any shadow of a doubt that the apollo missions, at least the footage that was shown to the public, are obvious hoaxes.
We will not agree on this topic.
Q did say that disinfo was necessary, but that does not mean you can arbitrarily apply this to other things he said. If you’re going to assert that Q said X when he “really meant” the opposite, then you’re going to have to provide evidence. And unfortunately, the “evidence” that the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat is far from conclusive. I’ve argued with these types for years, and their arguments boil down to 3 main categories:
(Insert aspect of science or space travel here) doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t understand it, therefore the whole thing’s a hoax.
The government disagrees with me, therefore I’m right.
I cherry picked some space related data to make 666 pop up every once in a while, therefore NASA consists of satanic Freemasons who lie about everything.
So yes, we are going to disagree because moon landing deniers and flat earthers aren’t interested in truth, facts, or reason. They want their pet theory to be true regardless of evidence because they have a persecution complex. They love other people telling them they’re wrong because it cements in their minds even more that they’re right.
The cabal ran the world for 1,000s of years. You don't think they can build a rocket? Q also wasn't addressing Apollo 11, so that may or may not've been a TV hoax.
there is a massive difference between building a rocket and getting humans through radiation belts, landing safely on the moon, taking off from the moon, and returning w/ appropriate life support.
Q said aliens are real, it can't be that impossible can it?
Sending a rocket through empty space isn't that much more difficult than just getting a rocket to orbit.
The spacex rockets landing themselves are pretty epic. Look at how advanced the SR-71 blackbird from 1964 is, and this is the stuff they allow to be declassified, imagine the secret stuff they've hidden from just the last 100 years.
Picking up a radio signal from a distant star system w/ a radio telescope on earth is easy as pie.
I take Q's comment as yes, we landed there....no, not necessarily by the means we have been told/shown whatsoever. I see we have the same low iq shithead shills claiming the buildings pancaked on 911 due to heat defending we launched a tin can into space carrying a rover, probably weighing more than said tin can, and succeeded on the first attempt....sure....
this is the only explanation that is possible. The apollo missions, at least the film shown to the public, were such an obvious hoax it is a shame to see people trying to defend it even on this sub. Appreciate your comment.
I would say it actually happened but maybe footage was fake because they found alien life? There was a disruption in comms right after some peculiar verbiage from an astronaut…
Q never said people landed on the moon I dont think.
post 2225 "false, moon landings were real"
Because they were real. What you think is "fake" is more a reflection of your ignorance.
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took of from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. Want to explain how they would not have seen the milky way and thousands of stars in space?
NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum. NASA gave other countries petrified wood and told them it was moon rocks. There is clear, undeniable evidence of the flag waving without being touched on a moon with no atmosphere.
There are 1000 other pieces of evidence, but sure, call people ignorant instead of arguing the evidence.
This is what I was responding to. I noticed it was already posted twice. You must love it.
The apollo missions did not go to the moon with a 40 kilobyte computer. They did not bring a moon buggy for funsies. There was no crater when a 10,000lb thrust engine landed or took of from moon dust. A human should be able to jump over 13 ft high on the moon, the astronauts didn't exceed 12 inches. The delay when they were talking to nixon was faster than the speed of light. The 3 apollo 11 astronauts looked like they wanted to kill themselves at their press conference after the mission, and couldn't even agree whether they saw stars or not, finally agreeing that they could not see any stars in space. NASA destroyed all the telemetry data and says it no longer exists. Current astronauts (Don Pettit) are on camera saying they "destroyed the technology" and cannot go back to the moon. Others are on camera admitting they have never left low earth orbit. The van allen radiation belts would have destroyed any on-board computers (admitted in current videos by nasa saying they have to design thick radiation shields to get through them) despite the fact that the lunar lander was made up of 1/8th inch aluminum.